News

McKennitt Op-Ed: “Pirates are Killing Musicians, Composers, Lyricists, Even Popcorn Vendors”

Loreena McKennitt published an op-ed supporting copyright reform in the Winnipeg Free Press over the weekend that focuses on the harm of infringement and the need for C-32.  The piece raises at least a couple of issues.  First, there is the claim that "even popcorn sellers are struggling to stay alive" in light the current state of Canadian copyright law. This claim arises from some declining interest in big music tours, which is taken as evidence that performances are not a viable alternative for many musicians.  What copyright reform has to do with concert venues, performers or popcorn sellers is anyone's guess – promoters of struggling music tours say it has everything to do with a tough economy, competition for the entertainment dollar, and high ticket prices rather than music downloads or IP enforcement. Copyright reform won't change the financial dynamics of the touring industry, which will presumably still leave those same popcorn vendors struggling to stay alive.

If the McKennitt piece was limited to the popcorn claim, it would merely join previous attempts to link copyright with the success of the corn industry (see Rick Cotton of NBC Universal).  However, McKennitt also challenges the very notion of user rights in copyright, calling them "so-called user rights" which she says is used by activists and academics as "crafted language."

This was not the first time that McKennitt warned against tough times for popcorn sellers and against user rights. In her remarks to the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage in April (on which this op-ed is clearly based), she used the same language in lamenting popcorn sellers struggling to stay alive.  On user rights, she argued "once we dispel the notion that in this respect there is no such thing as user rights, or that people own the music in a CD or a digital download, we can cease worrying about how to 'balance these rights.'"

Yet it is not just activists and academics (or education groups, or consumer groups, or creator groups who make use of works) that talk about user rights and copyright.  Chief Justice McLachlin of a unanimous Supreme Court of Canada had the following to say on user rights in the 2004 in the CCH Canadian v. Law Society of Upper Canada case:

"The fair dealing exception, like other exceptions in the Copyright Act, is a user’s right.  In order to maintain the proper balance between the rights of a copyright owner and users’ interests, it must not be interpreted restrictively.  As Professor Vaver, supra, has explained, at p. 171:  'User rights are not just loopholes.  Both owner rights and user rights should therefore be given the fair and balanced reading that befits remedial legislation.'"

The Supreme Court of Canada did not call user rights, "so-called user rights."  Rather, they recognized that they are an integral part of the copyright balance that should be respected both in law and in legal reform.  In fact, it is the failure to offer a compromise on digital locks that balances copyright owner rights and user rights that has been the primary source of criticism of the new bill.

99 Comments

  1. There is the heretical possibility that the divine Chief Justice was in fact wrong, and that she made this stuff up as she tried to justify the outcome she’d already selected. Why should users have rights? They aren’t allowed to help themselves to the popcorn on the basis that this balances the vendor’s rights of property ownership. The only reason that fair dealing has slipped into this paradigm is the ease of copying. In the dark days pre-Geist, when photocopying was in its infancy, fair dealing meant the right to copy, by typing or hand, small excerpts. As the technology advances, we’re told that users rights have to be expanded to offset the right of the people who write and publish to make money off their work. Lorena might have gone a bit hippy-dippy here but she makes a good point.

  2. Just a reminder
    Fair use is the excuse that the govt and courts give in order to limit our freedom of expression and speech by making copyright law.

    Without fair use our charter rights in section 2 of the charter would be infringed upon.

    The TPM provisions of C32 go too far, they prohibit distribution of TPM breakers, which could be expressions of ideas. Consider that the charter gives us freedom of expression but that C32 says we can’t express anything that violates TPMs.

  3. Property analogies are such a poor way of talking about copyright, in that copyrighted materials are different from other property. That’s why we have separate laws to protect those works, because they require a special approach.

    To Bob, in your analogy on popcorn, you’ve made a mistake. User rights aren’t a legal justification for stealing, which “help themselves to the popcorn” would imply. The user rights come after the purchase, in that you have a right to eat, manhandle, discard, reuse the popcorn once you buy it, so too should you have a right to listen to music you’ve purchased on any device of your choosing.

    It’s this kind of reactionary approach to the argument that endlessly muddles it. What could be a simple argument becomes a big ugly thing because of so much shoot-from-the-hip misdirection.

  4. Crosbie Fitch says:

    Rights
    Paraphrasing http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rights_of_Man

    Rights originate in nature, thus, cannot be granted via political charter, because that implies that rights are legally revocable, hence, would be privileges.

    The right to copy is inherently in all the inhabitants (their cultural liberty), but charters such as copyright that annul that right in the majority, leave the right, by exclusion, in the hands of a few. They, consequently, are instruments of injustice.

    ‘Fair use/dealing’ is simply a token residue of the individual’s natural right to copy that copyright condescends to admit as a defensible infringement. But, let’s not get confused here. The right to copy is natural possessed by us all. It is unnaturally and unethically suspended by copyright – a privilege created solely for the benefit of the press (and the state that would see it beholden).

    You can see why those who would exploit copyright are so eager to portray it as their right rather than a privilege, and why they’d denounce the natural right of the individual it suspends as an obnoxious offence (and not a right at all).

    Cultural liberty is offensive to the media monopolist, and that’s why they term those individuals who engage in it ‘pirates’.

  5. corruptmemory says:

    Bob, no, not quite…
    User rigths refer to the rights of users who use copyrighted works, not claims on the producers of copyrighted works. In your flawed analogy to “vendor rights” no such analogy exists.

    1. I buy popcorn from a vendor.
    2. The vendor supplies me my popcorn. At the same time said vendor relinquishes all control over such popcorn.
    3. I can do what I want with my popcorn.

    The vendor, once he sells me the popcorn has no more claim on it.

    This situation is not true in the case of copyright law.

    1. Producer of copyrighted work makes copies available.
    2. After some arrangement I obtain a copy of said copyrighted work from the producer.
    3. I cannot simply do what I want with my copy of said copyrighted work.

    As almost certainly been pointed out over and over again: copyright is a tool to create an economy of scarcity where an economy of abundance would naturally take hold. The abundance economy has always been with us, for as long as human minds have been able to copy information some humans have felt the need to place restrictions on the actions of others my the mere claim that they are the producer of some piece of information. It is inane, but getting wide-spread understanding of that inanity will take decades of unlearning our mistakes from the past.

  6. Farrell McGovern says:

    McKennitt ongoing commentary
    Like most of the music industry, Ms. McKennitt sees the way of life she has enjoyed since the 1980s with her first album, Elemental disappearing. She states that copyright reform is needed since her sales have tanked, and she blames this on the Internet. What she doesn’t mention is that she has released only *ONE* album of new material in 13 years. I think that might have more to do with it than anything else.

    When you don’t put out new material for so long, you fan base erodes. Very few artists can pull off such a long gap and still retain a fan base. Kate Bush did it…but her music is always unique, and her fans truly fanatical. Ms. McKennitt’s music was unique back in the 1980s and 90s, but today, there are lots of artists and bands that are mixing Eastern music stylings with Celtic music, making her music hardly unique anymore.

    Now, I have been a huge fan of her music for years. I bought her first album on cassette after hearing her stuff on a mixed tape I was given, and I have bought every CD and and most of DVDs she has put out. But now she maintains that she owns her music and all expressions of it fully, completely, and her fans have no rights to the music they have bought copies of. Because of this, since she feels as she does, she can now keep her music. If she ever puts out another album, or DVD, I will *NOT* buy it. It’s all *her’s* now.

    ttyl
    Farrell McGovern

  7. let people decide on their own to free their content. Stop trying to “take” it from them.

    There’s opensource, there’s the creative commons. Both which I use heavily. In fact I can count on one hand how many proprietary closed source applications are on my computer right now.

    You don’t have to operate in their world and you can still respect the same rights that opensource and creative commons use to ensure that authors rights are not infringed and authors wishes are followed.

    Respect the creator and innovator. Don’t take from them what they don’t want to give.

    The TPM provisions of C32 take from creators and innovators, that’s the problem.

    You could be a creator too.

  8. McKennit has a unique business model, and the current laws work well for her. However, not everyone can start their own label and manage every aspect of their business. For other musicians, focusing more on revenue streams from sources other than selling records (touring, merchandise, music for ads/movies, special appearances, etc) will work a lot better. Revised copyright laws will need to be able to support and encourage a wide variety of business models, not just the ones that big business has lobbied for over the past several decades.

    Perhaps Chief Justice McLachlin was responding to the whole of the issue in talking about user rights, and McKennit’s op-ed piece is only framing a part of the discussion so that her argument sounds very logical.

    Revised copyright laws will need to be able to support and encourage a wide variety of business models.

  9. @ Geoff > There’s opensource, there’s the creative commons. Both which I use heavily. In fact I can count on one hand how many proprietary closed source applications are on my computer right now.

    In the last two months I’ve donated $80 to net labels, Linux Mint and other open source projects and I have spent 0 money in the last two years on new commercial music except for a rare release I tired to buy off Amazon but couldn’t so I went to Boomkat and got it there. I’m sure there are 1000′s like me now who use to spend money on copy righted music/software but have learnt that there are different/better alternatives with the help of the internet.

    Why dp people think that copyright means they have a right to perpetual money machine from their work with out actually working on getting that money?

  10. …struggling music tours…
    Well, I don’t know about Loreena McKennitt. I know she doesn’t release much and doesn’t tour much, of course her sales are going to tank. In regards to tours though, AC/DC sells out in minutes, Tool sells out in minutes, Our Lady Peace, Nickelback, Ozzy, etc. etc. etc… Why? The last few concerts I attended were sold out shows. The last show I attended, just recently, was Iron Maiden. Sold Out!!! Just under 17,000 tickets at $102 a ticket. The answer…rock and metal bands tend to cater to the fans and put on more exciting shows. On top of that, metal fans, especially Iron Maiden fans, tend to be more fantical and willing to pay more. Merchanidise lines went out the doors and around the building. At $102 and $40+ for a shirt if you so chose, I suppose many people decided to forego the popcorn…but I’ll tell you, the beer sales were certainly good. Who goes to a concert and gets popcorn anyway? I think it’s more the outrageous ticket prices that keep people away…especially for softer stuff like McKennitt or Sarah MacLaughlan who tend to attract a more mature, fiscally aware crowd. As I said, metal fans often tend to be younger and can be fanatical.

    Less than 20 years ago I paid $28 for a Metallica ticket that would cost me closer to $150 now. Where is the justification for this kind of inflation? Salaries certainly haven’t gone up that much. Prices like this make shows too expensive for many.

    Like him or hate him, you have to respect Ozzy Ozbourne for the fact that he won’t let a venue charge more than a certain amount for a ticket, I think $55 or $60. He’s got a ton of money and doesn’t see the need to gouge his fans. He simply won’t play at a venue if they refuse to comply.

    What McKennitt fails to acknowledge is that you MUST release new material to maintain a fan base and sales!!! 1 album in 13 years…C’MON!!! People like a little variety.

  11. While I enjoy McKennitt’s music, I don’t think someone who has used existing works by others (such as poems and traditional songs) is a suitable person to put forward a claim for total ownership by creator. No creator works in a vacuum, and she certainly hasn’t.

  12. Maybe it’s not copyright…
    Maybe people simply object to paying $4+ for 10 cents worth of corn?

  13. I bought it, I can Listen to It.
    What everyone is missing on the side of the record industry is what I can do today, always have been able to do, and should be able to do in the future.

    If I buy a DVD, CD, album, cassette, I have always been able to take that with me in the car, listen to it at home, or take it over to a friends place a listen there, then bring it back home. That is all everyone is trying to do with the electronic versions. Let me place the song on my iPod (or other player) and listen to it at my convenience.

    Big music can not tell me I can not do this anymore as they are trying to do right now. Buy one for the house, one for the car, etc… This is crazy and is what the music industry wants. Keep buying the same thing, only do not take it with you and listed to it, buy another.

    The format change from cassette to CD was bad enough. Here, buy what you have, only with digital playback, not even remastered, for a large price. Then you get the box set, the digitally remaster CDs etc…

    This is another example of why newspapers are in trouble, they are printing this drivel and people can not stand reading it so they do not buy the paper anymore, they get news from more current, better linked in sources, on the internet.

    The music industry needs to move on with the old business model to something that makes sense. They can keep complaining that iTunes came along and stole all the sales, and iTunes sales are growing substantially, by meeting what the consumer wanted. The recording industry needs to do the same, and the movie industry, or they will be broke and a footnote in history.

  14. mumonkan says:

    I do not understand what piracy has to do with live events. Live events cannot be downloaded neither stolen. If Pop Corn vendors are struggling because of decrease attendance of live performance it cannot be attributed to piracy which in some way increases attendance (since increase popularity). For example Porcupine Tree, despite piracy, sold out many of their shows. Their last live DVD special edition was sold out and their last CD was in any top 10 selling chart all around the world. The only people who are struggling in this new digital age is the music industry and some outdated musician.

  15. Hendrik Boom says:

    There’s clearly too much popcorn piracy going on. What’s the world coming to when popcorn eaters can just download free copies of a popcorn kernel on the internet without compensating the original chef?

  16. Michael Price says:

    God help the Dairy Farmers too!
    Don’t forget the poor dairy farmer….

    I’m sure they’ll be heading to Ottawa for subsidized handouts due to the low consumption of butter now on popcorn because of Mr. McKennitt’s way of thinking!

  17. Every heard of ethanol…
    Since corn is being used for ethanol it is selling very well…

    http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN1024930520070710

    http://futures.tradingcharts.com/chart/CN/M

  18. Attack!
    McKennitt Op-Ed: “Pirates are Killing Musicians, Composers, Lyricists, Even Popcorn Vendors”

    Personally, it seems to me that the collective of Musicians, Composers, Lyricists, Even Popcorn Vendors are killing media. But perhaps an implosion of the digital market is necessary to bring everyone back to the table, a little more humble & willing? I, for one, am utterly uninterested in a special class of “artist citizens” in Canada. I like what is being produced, am willing to pay for it, but would rather have it wither and be replaced, than entrench (re-trench?) the establishment further. It’s not like they’re supplying food, shelter, energy, or clothing. What they make is just a pleasant luxury, nothing more. Their product simply isn’t worth the burden they are demanding society shoulders.

  19. Anarchist Philanthropist says:

    If a “pirate” said to you
    “Give me a reason to stop downloading music”

    What would you say to them?

  20. Same here
    Farrell McGovern said:
    (…)
    Now, I have been a huge fan of her music for years. I bought her first album on cassette after hearing her stuff on a mixed tape I was given, and I have bought every CD and and most of DVDs she has put out. But now she maintains that she owns her music and all expressions of it fully, completely, and her fans have no rights to the music they have bought copies of. Because of this, since she feels as she does, she can now keep her music. If she ever puts out another album, or DVD, I will *NOT* buy it. It’s all *her’s* now.
    ——————————–

    That’s pretty much how it happened to me. Back in university, a friend wanted me to translate the lyrics for one of her songs and gave me a tape, as I didn’t have a CD player at the time. I liked it so much that I bought the tape, and later a few of the CDs that were available in Brazil.

    But if that is her way of thinking about whether or not I have a right to enjoy music I pay for, I will have to spend my money elsewhere.

    Very disappointing.

  21. Everyone is missing the elephant
    What I wonder about is why people aren’t worried about the reversal of responsibility for IP rights. People don’t seem to get why Copyright exists. It’s a monopoly, protected by recognition of the government that you have the exclusive right to enjoy the profits thereof. BUT there is a requirement that you spend your OWN money defending said rights.

    All the issues are smoke and mirrors except for the fact they want their monopoly ENFORCED by taxpayers and still KEEP their profits.

    I say, screw em. If they want taxpayer money to protect the profits, let the government collect the royalties and deduct the costs of enforcement and management.

    People need to stop supporting the music industry. Stop buying CD’s , stop going to iTunes, stop downloading from legit sites and pirate sites. Let the whole thing remember who has the $$ and is really in charge.

    Why is it that in every other retail sector, the customer is king, but in Music/Media the customer is a Prey Animal that is merely a custodian of revenue on behalf of the RIAA.

    Consumers, grow some stones and stop feeding the parasites. There was no music industry before the gramaphone. We’ll live. They won’t.

    Rob

  22. Thanks to Lorena for having the courage to speak the truth.
    Artists at all levels are finding it increasingly difficult for them to justify recording new material. It’s one thing to record a casual piece on garage band, it’s quite another to create a recording of broadcast quality and professional appeal…that takes alot of time expertise and money to create. Why should an artist like Lorena invest $50,000-$100,000 recording something she can be proud of, when she wont see a penny of it back? Many artists that make it to the billboard hot 100 chart won’t recoup their recording costs, not from digital sales, not from performances, and not from t shirt sales. That’s just wrong, when the song had enough appeal to enter the Billboard Hot 100 chart. The system is broken. It’s like taking away minimum wage and going back to a time when there are no labour laws.

  23. Hindgrinder says:

    If a “pirate” said to you
    “Give me a reason to stop downloading music”

    I would say…

    Didn’t your parents teach you that sharing is not only bad – it’s ILLEGAL! Didn’t your parents teach you that in a Capitalist US Serfdom “thoughts” are “property”? Right down to the last 1 and 0…there is a corporation that owns it and you have to pay for the right to think it or use it. Without Monopolistic Revised Maritime Law our Cultural Economy would instantly collapse and popcorn vendors would be forced back into real jobs that might even require physical labor.

    HG
    - http://www.pirateparty.ca – “Free popcorn” soon to be suggested for all our local meetings.

  24. POPCORN???
    For the love of criminy, I would never reach across the counter and steal popcorn from the vendor, Loreena! I will, however, absolutely and forever exercise my rights to SHARE that popcorn with whoever I want after I have bought it.

  25. re: POPCORN???
    Oh, and the same goes for legally purchased or downloaded music :P

  26. You’ve been sniffing too much ritual smoke, McKennitt
    I will NEVER buy another of your albums again!

  27. @jimmy
    Lots of passion in your statement there Jimmy..

    Could you please explain, in step by step detail, how the TPM measures in bill C-32 will accomplish your laudable goal?

    In every analysis I have done, and many I have read by others, C-32 can’t and won’t help your stated goal. Perhaps you can put forth some information on exactly how it will do so? You have a clean slate, start from whatever position you want. But step by step please.

  28. end user says:

    @Jimmy

    Wow again I wasn’t aware that copyrights also gave musicians the ability to automagically make money every time they put out a new song or album.

    Where does copy right say that someone will be able to recoup their products/advertising costs from creating an album?

    If you are not making money from a product you invented maybe you’re in the wrong business or shouldn’t have singed away your copyrights ot the record labels.

  29. @ oldguy and whoever really cares about a proper solution
    C-32 is not perfect. Laws should be created that regulate what the ISP can and cannot do. Transmitting files that a copyright owner wishes not to be free or promotional should be respected and not allowed. Child porn and spam should be monitored and regulated as well, and punishments rendered. Certain things are not allowed on our roads and highways and the same should apply to the internet. A portion of your ISP bill should go to the creators whose products are currently being freely distributed on the internet. The metrics of collection and distribution can be easily developed with broad consultation. Radio stations are already doing it and related laws have been in place for decades. It’s a no brainer. But it has not come to pass because everyone loves “free” and the lawmakers to date have been of a certain age, who dont fully understand the technology and therefore have postponed the issue. It astounds me that we can justify paying hundreds of dollars per month for our internet and mobile needs, yet we balk and complain at the mention of allocating a few pennies to the artists who help make the internet the interesting and entertaining place that it has become. It really does make us very small.

  30. end user says:

    @Jimmy

    SO with your reasoning computer manufactures, adsl/cable modem, dvd, flash drive, etc… have to pony up money but its always the IPS’s. Seems kinda strange why its always the IPS’s you do realizae that with out a modem or a computer no one could pirate digital copies of works.

    Crap maybe lets get a gas tax after all I used my car to buy my computer hardware.

    Just like you said certain things are not allowed on the roads/highways so why does a music/movie/software file get “special status” compared to a bag of popcorn. After all I can trade, sell do what ever I want with the bag of popcorn I just bought but I can’t do the same with a digital file

  31. @jimmy
    But.. None of what you are talking about is in bill C-32!

    Back to my question, exactly how is bill C-32 going to help with your goals?

  32. Popcorn is one of the worst inventions
    along with McDonald’s.

  33. Hindgrinder says:

    The Herf is Strong with this one..
    @Jimmy
    “”A portion of your ISP bill should go to the creators whose products are currently being freely distributed on the internet.””

    Um…if you want the ISPs to pay you for “labor”…I think you might want to pick up a shovel and start trenching fiber.

    POPCORN-NEUTRALITY NOW!

    HG

  34. Buying a license to listen?
    “When folks buy a CD (or a legitimate download) they are actually buying a licence to listen. They don’t own the rights to the song.”

    Sorry Loreena, that may be your fantasy world, but it’s not how Copyright law works. I bought a couple of your CDs, you know, back when you actually used to make music, and I can assure you that I agreed to no license agreement. Can you point us at one?

    By the way, after seeing you so casually dismiss my rights in the copyright balance, I’m utterly disinclined to buy anything you put out again.

  35. phillipsjk says:

    @Hindgrinder
    I might actually be interested in that. Where do I sign up?

    Of course, due to Telecom Decision CRTC 2010-255 (http://www.crtc.gc.ca/eng/archive/2010/2010-255.htm), I have drawn up contingency plans for a high latency, high bandwidth “parallel” back bone that would cost ~3 million/year to operate in Alberta.

  36. mckracken says:

    the elephant in the article
    ticketmaster

    when the access to tickets is controlled by a single monopoly who redirects tickets to its’ own auction sites we have a(nother) problem that has nothing to do with c 32. when a 2-3 hour act is being priced at a days wage for a great many people do you really think many are going to bother?

  37. If we are going to stick with the popcorn analogy…of course you have the right to share your popcorn, but eventually it will be gone. With sharing music, you don’t end up with less than you started with because you just go on making copies of it.


  38. Then let’s go with the toy analogy. You can share a toy. It never disappears. You never end up with less then you started with.

  39. @Bob
    “If we are going to stick with the popcorn analogy…of course you have the right to share your popcorn, but eventually it will be gone. With sharing music, you don’t end up with less than you started with because you just go on making copies of it.”

    The **AAs and associated groups are trying to convince people this is a “new” problem. This is quite far from the truth. Since the advent of personal recording and cassettes, this has ALWAYS been the case!! I couldn’t even venture a guess at how many copies and mixed tapes (And later, CDs) I made when I was a kid but, it was at the very least, in the hundreds, probably in the thousands if I include all my friends. This is nothing new, it’s just easier with computers and digital media.

    File sharing sites and tools, along with streaming media sites are becoming this generation’s “radio”. These fall in to a different category and one which is becoming increasingly difficult to track. File sharing and streaming media is Pandora’s Box and there will be no putting the lid back on. The must find ways to work with these tools and not against them. What they’re trying to do can be equated to herding cats…good luck there.

    You know though, people should expect to pay less for downloaded media because of the lack of packaging and other costs related to the production of hard-copies…ESPECIALLY if the **AA’s get what they want and everything essentially becomes rentals with no inherant user rights.

  40. No, the toy doesn’t disappear, but only one person at a time can play with it

  41. @Bob
    No you can’t copy a toy, but you can play with it WITH someone, loan it to someone, or sell it or give even it away. You can do the same with a CD or DVD. This automatically give these things more intrinsic value than something purely digital that you cannot you cannot loan, sell or give away.

    Am I going to want to keep a movie, TV series or music CD I buy forever? Think about it. Is it reasonable that at about the same cost for digital that I should have to do so? In reality, cost is often more for me if you include the cost of the bandwidth usage? What they want for digital is basically a glorified rental, for that I should expect to pay rental prices.

    Back on topic… I still fail to see how piracy does anything but help concert ticket sales. You can pirate many things, but attending a live show is not among those things. For people to attend, you have to be known and few things get the word out like file sharing. AND, it helps if you have current material…LORENA!!!! It’s more the sheer cost and the state of the world economy affecting ticket sales.

  42. wow
    time to take her off of all of my pandora playlists now.

    I knew the woman was insane, this just confirms it.

  43. end user says:

    @Bob

    I can delete the digital file after its been transfered/sold. If you as a publisher don’t believe me that’s not my problem.

    I’ve sold software before that was download only and the other person had no problems installing and using it while I deleted my version.


  44. While at the same time, I have software (Cyberlink PowerDVD 9 Ultra) I purchased on-line (So that I can play BD) that I can’t even transfer to a different PC. I purchased an “upgrade” version which, aparently, should not install on an OEM version, but it did, and now they tell me my only option is to buy a full copy at full price. AND their tech support even conceeded that I should have received some warning and the installation should have failed. To which my response, after several e-mails back and forth, was to call them greedy a$$holes, in more polite terms, and inform them that while I was trying my damnedest to do it legitemately, it would have been A LOT faster to download a cracked version from BitTorrent. All I wanted to do was remove it from one PC and put it on another. Cyberlink customer service sucks. I haven’t downloaded it as I’m STILL going to try to get it done legitemately…we’ll see.

  45. @Jimmy
    “A portion of your ISP bill should go to the creators whose products are currently being freely distributed on the internet. The metrics of collection and distribution can be easily developed with broad consultation.”

    I actually agree with this even though I am majorly opposed to Bill C-32. Creators should be paid for certain and this proposal that you mentioned is a very easy solution that would make both sides content.

    People do want stuff for free but they also understand that creators need to be compensated, as long as their privacy and freedom of information rights are not violated. And with this solution, creators would start earning promptly, for each media item downloaded they would get paid. One million items downloaded even at 5 cents is still $50,000 CDN.

    If Moore & Co really cared about Canadians and the rights of creators, they would push forward this proposal instead of the “let’s make everyone into a criminal” one (aka Bill C-32).

  46. As for that Universal exec who said that we as users don’t have rights. Hah! Copyright by definition is a RIGHT that we as the public give to creators, not the other way around.

    I am guessing pretty soon democracy will become a nuisance that is of concern only to the “radical extremists/whiners/bleeding hearts/[insert your own derogatory term here; bonus if the term was coined by Fox News]“. Funny!

  47. people like loreena should just get out of the music business. music is about communication. who the hell is she communicating with? and why? oh, i see, she is in it for the money. have you noticed that many ‘serious’ musicians sell insignificant numnbers or recordings. that’s the nature of the biz i would suggest a mechanical divice around her neck with a sign that says ‘insert dollar, tune dispenced from mouth’

  48. @jimmy
    “Many artists that make it to the billboard hot 100 chart won’t recoup their recording costs, not from digital sales, not from performances, and not from t shirt sales.”

    I guess, then, that you want the citizenry of the country to subsidize you and other musicians (and creators) to create your work and then to afford you the lifestyle to which you’d love to become accustomed. The Canada Council on steroids.

    Copyright exists to give you and other creators a monopoly for a time on what you create not to dictate it’s use, function, sales or lack of sales. It does not exist to guarantee you an income.

    Some of the comments you make in your follow up tread dangerously close to increased censorship. You may appreciate that in Ontario but in places like BC and Quebec we rather prefer that the state butt out. (Before you go down that road I’m not talking about child abuse at all in that one.)

    As for “free” listeners have been doing that for decades on radio, mostly advertising supported, so the notion of “free” to listen to a song isn’t a creation or creature of the Internet. If anything one could blame it on radio or troubadours and others who wandered from town to town or whatever other way musicians earned their way before radio and recordings. (Selling 19thC tshirts?)

    Nor should ISPs subsidize musicians in particular or the arts in general. Ms McKennitt and you both illustrate an annoying fact of the Canadian arts community that you’ve come to expect, nay, that you’re entitled to the rest of the 30 million plus of us to subsidize you whether or not we are the slightest bit interested or enamoured of your work.

    Bill C32 is a mess. It creates more problems that it solves, actually, for musicians, for creators and everyone except the the Canadians branch plants of the **AAs and CAPAC and other collection agencies that stuff their own pocket before paying (if ever) artists.

    The bottom line here is that the business you’re in, as Ms McKennitt is in, is rapidly changing. Blaming largely imaginary “pirates” and a sudden appeareance of a “culture of the free”, which in itself isn’t true, is going to change that.

    Bill C32 or no Bill C32.


  49. A little perspecive.

    Copyright has it’s origins in the “Statute of Anne” of 1710. Contrary to popular belief, and what McKennitt would like, copyright was not instituted to protect the author or creator, it was created to give the public rights to materials…the “right to copy”. The Statute of Anne also created the “public domain”, which effectively disolved the “perpetual ownership” of materials by the creator/publisher. In those days, after the bill, the creator/publisher had exclusive “copy” rights over the material for 14 years and could apply for a 14 year extension, afterwhich it became public domain. It was never intended to ensure ongoing profit in perpetuity.

    Still, even when one holds the copyright to materials, if that person “sells” me a copy, it’s MY copy, I OWN that copy and can to do with and use as I will…as long as I don’t make more copies for anyone other than myself. Today’s copyright law is a perverse shawdow of what it was originally intended to embody and today’s lawmakers should be ashamed of themselves.

    The public domain was created to control perpetual monopolies over materials and megalomaniacs like Loreena McKennitt.

  50. @ John said:

    Bill C32 is a mess. It creates more problems that it solves, actually, for musicians, for creators and everyone except the the Canadians branch plants of the **AAs and CAPAC and other collection agencies that stuff their own pocket before paying (if ever) artists.

    Don’t forget that Ms McKennitt is not so much an artist anymore but a label.. and her vested interest is not in her own music (esp w/lack thereof) but lining her own pockets from artists on her label.

  51. RE: Glenn
    “Don’t forget that Ms McKennitt is not so much an artist anymore but a label.. and her vested interest is not in her own music (esp w/lack thereof) but lining her own pockets from artists on her label.”

    She’s discovered that fleecing other artists is much more profitable than making your own music…probably much more suitable to her temperment.

  52. @IamME
    “She’s discovered that fleecing other artists is much more profitable than making your own music…probably much more suitable to her temperment.”

    It certianly allows her to hang around Stratford 12 months a year, hob nob with the cultural “elite” of Canada (as defined by the CBC this means Toronto) and attend a play or two rather than actually gig or create.

  53. armchair nomad says:

    missing the point…
    I think a lot of people on both sides of this argument are missing the valid points of the other. You’re all backed into your bunkers and unwilling to see things from the other’s perspective.

    end user: “Why dp people think that copyright means they have a right to perpetual money machine from their work with out actually working on getting that money?”

    Response: Because time, money, and effort were spend making the product, and even after it is released, advertising and promoting that product is required. Just because you’re not doing some sort of physical labor doesn’t mean people should just be able to distribute millions of copies of your product with no compensation going back to you. It is hard work to write, record, produce, release and promote music and an artist.

    Steven said: “If I buy a DVD, CD, album, cassette, I have always been able to take that with me in the car, listen to it at home, or take it over to a friends place a listen there, then bring it back home. That is all everyone is trying to do with the electronic versions. Let me place the song on my iPod (or other player) and listen to it at my convenience.

    Response: That is not all people are “trying to do” with music. I agree with you that you should be able to play music wherever you wish once you buy it. I didn’t buy music off of iTunes for a long time because of the DRM. But it is a different story entirely when millions of people are distributing millions of copies of your work, and costing you, as an artist, lots of money. Where is the incentive to try and make music your living if the world believes it’s ok to just copy it an infinite amount of times. It is one thing to bring a CD to a friends house, or put it in your car stereo. You are sharing. Redistributing is not like lending a CD to a friend, it’s like copying it 3 billion times and giving a copy to everyone on earth with a computer.

    Steve said: “They can keep complaining that iTunes came along and stole all the sales, and iTunes sales are growing substantially, by meeting what the consumer wanted.”

    Response: iTunes has deals with the music industry. I don’t think they’re complaining about iTunes stealing anything. That’s been their savior to a certain extent.

    Steve said: “For the love of criminy, I would never reach across the counter and steal popcorn from the vendor, Loreena! I will, however, absolutely and forever exercise my rights to SHARE that popcorn with whoever I want after I have bought it.”

    Response: A popcorn vendors popcorn is not infinite, for one. You can only give away as much as you bought. If that were the case with music, you would be able to give away ONE copy of that song, if you want to use the same analogy. You can not make your bag of popcorn have an effect on the sale of popcorn worldwide. Big difference.

    I am not a fan of DRM. I am not a fan of the music industry. I only used Emusic for a long time, mostly to buy independent music, DRM free, because I boycotted Apple’s restrictions on using the music on other players besides the Ipod. I think the music industries reactions and “solutions” to their problems have been short sighted and sometimes even appaling (like Sony’s secret software on commercial CDs).

    However, as an artist, I find it ignorant as well how the people no the other side of the isle don’t realize that distributing millions of copies of someone’s hard work IS taking money out of their pocket. It’s not like you’re sharing something that is limited. If you like an artist, support them. Find independent artists you can support, where you know the money is going into their pocket and not a hundred corporate pricks that are stealing most of the money from the artist anyways.

    Sure, artists can make money in many other ways these days, but that does not mean that they should not be able to make money from the sale of their music either.

    To the recording industry – Adapt, lower your standard of living a little bit and maybe sell a mansion or two, and cater to what your customers want, is fairly priced music that they can use however they want for their own personal use. Go after the people who are distributing thousands or millions of copies, don’t restrict the guy who wants to backup a copy for his car from doing so.

    To the music fans: Support the musicians you like. No musician wants to work in a fucking restaurant or repair computers or whatever they do to make money, they want to focus on writing and promoting their music. Realize the collective effect of your actions, ie. you along with millions of other people distributing millions of copies of someone elses hard work without compensating them. Buy independent music if you don’t want to support the big 5 (or is it 4 now?) music conglomerates.

  54. jimmy said:
    Thanks to Lorena for having the courage to speak the truth.
    Artists at all levels are finding it increasingly difficult for them to justify recording new material. It’s one thing to record a casual piece on garage band, it’s quite another to create a recording of broadcast quality and professional appeal…that takes alot of time expertise and money to create. Why should an artist like Lorena invest $50,000-$100,000 recording something she can be proud of, when she wont see a penny of it back? Many artists that make it to the billboard hot 100 chart won’t recoup their recording costs, not from digital sales, not from performances, and not from t shirt sales. That’s just wrong, when the song had enough appeal to enter the Billboard Hot 100 chart. The system is broken. It’s like taking away minimum wage and going back to a time when there are no labour laws.

    ==================================
    Don’t you know? the player piano and the gramophone killed live performances 100 years ago: http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/10/100-years-of-big-content-fearing-technologyin-its-own-words.ars

    While I do sympathize with artists, and I certainly agree that they should be paid, it was the music industry’s aversion to new technology that caused this whole mess. If they had looked at the business opportunity that the internet offered back in 2001, they wouldn’t be fretting about it now.

    And if you are right, that filesharing does indeed kill the music industry, then so be it. The pirates will have gotten what they deserve, right?

    @ armchair nomad: Great post! Thank you. And I believe that people will support artists they like. I tend to buy DVD box sets of series I like, even after I have seen them on TV. I do the same for anime series, but I do wait for the box sets, as the individual DVDs tend to be very overpriced.

  55. @armchair nomad
    Great post!! And I agree with most of what you said.

    end user: “Why dp people think that copyright means they have a right to perpetual money machine from their work with out actually working on getting that money?”

    Response: Because time, money, and effort were spend making the product, and even after it is released, advertising and promoting that product is required. Just because you’re not doing some sort of physical labor doesn’t mean people should just be able to distribute millions of copies of your product with no compensation going back to you. It is hard work to write, record, produce, release and promote music and an artist.

    While I agree with your resopnse in esscence, I disagree that copyright should be perpetual, in fact I think it’s overly long now. On top of that, people and organizations are trying to claw stuff back that has already gone in to the public domain. The public domain exists for a reason…it helps keep works alive and available. Of course creators and publishers would like copyright to be perpetual, but that creates an extremely one-sided relationship where the creator has all the rights and the consumer has none, ever.

    When copyright was first instituted in 1710 there was a huge push-back from publishers who, before then, would have perpetual rights to a work. If a work didn’t sell well it wouldn’t get reprinted, or even destroyed. This is what happens when private business controls such things. There is little respect for the work itself, it’s all about the profit margin. Do you actually think the recording conglomerates care in the least for the bands that work for them? Sure they do…as long as they’re profitable.

    These are two different issues, but intertwined.

  56. end user says:

    @IamME

    Again why do they think they automagically deserve to make money? There’s no guarantee that your product will make money and the kind of millions they expect to make (mind you its the record companies who will make the money anyways) no matter who much you promote it.

    I create a product and I think its the cats ass yet no one give a damn so I make no money but these people think they still deserver to make money even though their product/music sucks. Then they have the nerve to as for levies to compensate for their crap product.

    Whats next clothing manufacturers wanting a levy on transportation because its used to get shoplifters to the store to steal products?

  57. armchair nomad says:

    yes but…
    I’m not arguing that they “deserve” to make their money back. What I am arguing is they be given rights to control who is able to distriubute the material that they have created. If people don’t buy it, people don’t buy it, but that doesn’t mean others have the right to do what they want with it, most without even purchasing it in the first place.

    I disagree with any levy or tax put on a service (like ISPs) to pay another industry (the music industry) for their losses. It’s not like the internet was created for the sole intention of stealing music.

    I also am not saying that copyright should be forever. It should have a reasonable time limit placed on it, maybe 50 years. I say 50 because if people are still buying YOUR music 50 years from now, wouldn’t it be nice for the fruits of your labor being able to take care of your children as well? Isn’t that why many of us do what we do to begin with?

  58. @end user
    I absolutely agree!! However, I don’t mind the levies, it’s a better option than a lot of other things, but if C-32 comes in in all it’s glory, those who choose to employ DRM should NOT be allowed to partake of the levy slush fund.

    As I said in a previous post, copyright has been perverted over the years. It was never intended to guarantee a copyright holder income, only to ensure the copyright holder has the exclusive “right to copy” a work and exclusive “right to profit” from a work for a given period of time. If it’s crap and it sells nothing, they should make nothing. If it’s popular and sells millions they have exclusive right over that profit…ONLY until the end of the copyright period. When it becomes public domain, anyone can use it and profit from it as they see fit.

    The copyright holder should have no rights to control or circumscribe how a consumer uses a work after it has been purchased. That “copy”, be it physical or digital, becomes wholey owned property of the consumer to use as he or she wishes for personal and/or educational purposes. This is how copyright is supposed to function. Anything less than this is basically a rental and should cost far less.

  59. @armchair nomad
    Your plumber doesn’t get a royalty every time you flush the toilet. The Architect doesn’t get a royalty every time you do a minor renovation (“format sift”). Why should a copyrighted work be a license to print money for such a long term? 50 years is actually what is mandated by the Berne conventions.

    IF I patent the design of a new widget, I only get protection for 20 years. If my widget has substantial software portions, the copyright on the software portions outlasts the patent by at least 30 years (I don’t think the time starts until the author dies).

    Note: Patent law is stronger than copyright law in that I am allowed to prohibit the production of similar widgets making use of the same idea. For copyright, independent discovery is a defense.

  60. phillipsjk says:

    Oops
    Forgot to change my “name” back :P

  61. end user says:

    Q armchair nomad said: yes but…
    I’m not arguing that they “deserve” to make their money back. What I am arguing is they be given rights to control who is able to distriubute the material that they have created. If people don’t buy it, people don’t buy it, but that doesn’t mean others have the right to do what they want with it, most without even purchasing it in the first place.

    I don’ think anyone here is saying that artists have no right to copyright what everyone one is trying to say is that artists and really this is about music/movie industry think they are beyond every industry and that their copyright give them the right to control my usage of a “BOUGHT” item. If you want this FINE then slap on a big fat sticker on a DC/DVD/BR disk stating that I’m only leasing item and drop the price by 90%.

  62. @armchair nomad
    While I have no real issue with most of your posts the defence of the lunacy that copyright has become and with ACTA will become even worse misses the point for both artist and consumer. Your response to Steve regarding a consumer’s right to move from media to media depending on whether or not he’s by his computer, in his car seat or wherever illustrates part of the problem.

    Your do get closer to it when you advise the recording industry to adapt to changing technological times you appear to miss that the recording industry triggered this to start with in the 1990s when they killed off the single. One can argue that high speed home connections were more of a trigger but file sharing (and Napster) predated that. People wanted the singles they heard on radio or saw on MTV videos but had no way of getting them. File sharing/Napster offered a way to do that which wasn’t otherwise available. Instead of listening to the market the industry hit back with lawsuits, levies on CDs and so on. And then the challenge of DRM and copy protection came out that simply escalated things. (Don’t tell a hacker, even the good guy white hat variety that they can’t break your annoying copy protection. That’s the software equivalent of a red flag to a bull. Black hat types will spread the crack while white hats may just pat themselves on the back and go on with their days. The latter tends to be my approach except when confronted by garbage like Sony’s infamous rootkit.)

    I’m still amazed that the recording industry hasn’t really got it yet. Bring back and promote the darned single!

    IamME has it right that that very marketing issue has been successfully mixed in with copyright (mostly by the recording industry itself) to the point where it’s hard to tell where one ends and the other begins.

    IamME is also right in the distortion of copyright which began in the US Congress with Sonny Bono introducing a bill so that the copyright on Mickey Mouse didn’t expire (in a huge mixup betwen trademark and copyright but that’s another story) and has spiralled downhill from there.

    No one is saying get rid of copyright. Just bring it back to its original purpose and simplicity.

    Stop the nonsense of levies whose sole reason seems to be welfare for someone though we’re not sure it’s artists.

    And no one is saying you shouldn’t earn a living doing what you love to do and are talented at. Just that Bill C-32 isn’t the answer to that need. For example the digital lock rule is futile for the simple reason that the Internet is international and someone, somewhere is going to crack the lock. Instead of fixing it the bill escalates the “war” started by Sonny Bono so many years ago.

  63. There are no other artists on her label that she can “fleece”.

  64. armchair nomad says:

    @end user
    I absolutely agree!! However, I don’t mind the levies, it’s a better option than a lot of other things, but if C-32 comes in in all it’s glory, those who choose to employ DRM should NOT be allowed to partake of the levy slush fund.

    As I said in a previous post, copyright has been perverted over the years. It was never intended to guarantee a copyright holder income, only to ensure the copyright holder has the exclusive “right to copy” a work and exclusive “right to profit” from a work for a given period of time. If it’s crap and it sells nothing, they should make nothing. If it’s popular and sells millions they have exclusive right over that profit…ONLY until the end of the copyright period. When it becomes public domain, anyone can use it and profit from it as they see fit.

    @IamME:
    You said:
    “The copyright holder should have no rights to control or circumscribe how a consumer uses a work after it has been purchased. That “copy”, be it physical or digital, becomes wholey owned property of the consumer to use as he or she wishes for personal and/or educational purposes.”

    However the term “used” is left wide open for debate as to what it actually means. Is “using” a product making it available on the internet and distributing millions of copies? Is that an “educational purpose” because you’re educating people about a band or artist?

    @end user
    no you are arguing this: “Why do people think that copyright means they have a right to perpetual money machine from their work with out actually working on getting that money?”

    That was what you first said. I am saying that the musicians and artists that are worth supporting are not the ones that believe this. It’s the recording industry. The only musicians that believe this are drinking the record labels kool-aid, or too unknown or irrelevant to matter. Many big artists are tired of the mainstream music business and have found ways around it. (Radiohead and NIN to name two).

    @CRIA
    No but the people that have patents on all of the parts and supplies that go into making a toilette are getting paid by the sale. Your plumber analogy is a bit of a straw man argument. As is your architect argument. The architect can get a patent on his design and somebody else wants to use it, he gets a royalty.

    If you make a widget, in 20 years it will be useless. In 5 years it will be useless. There is a reason for the discrepancy in the lenght of protection.

    @John
    I am not defending how crazy copyright has gotten. I feel that now the clampdown on consumers by these corporations, with the help of the governments of the world, is not only being used as a tool to hold up an old business model to keep someones pockets fat, but also as a means of silencing freedom of speech, and of basic control over communication and information. I disagree with the need to even have ACTA, without even getting into the specific disagreements of its contents.

    I never meant to understate the fact that the recording industry shot itself in the foot, and the industry deciding there was more money in selling people a record full of crap with one good song helped to push that along. And your idea that the industry hasn’t “brought back the single” is in direct contrast to what has actually happened, which is that full album sales are way down these days, and singles are far outselling albums. They do realize this.

  65. armchair nomad says:

    @end user
    Haha I forgot to actually type a response to you after I copied your post in my previous message. I think I need to sleep. Good debate. :)

  66. phillipsjk says:

    The strawmen were analogies
    armchair nomad wrote:
    “No but the people that have patents on all of the parts and supplies that go into making a toilette are getting paid by the sale. Your plumber analogy is a bit of a straw man argument. As is your architect argument. The architect can get a patent on his design and somebody else wants to use it, he gets a royalty.”

    The work the plumber does to make the fittings fit is not deemed “creative enough” for protection. The plumber may use fittings that are not under patent protection. In that case, the suppliers would be compensated in the form of money in return for manufacturing the fitting. The Architect will have copyright protection on the drawings, so likely get a royalty every time a major renovation is undertaken. In that sense, the Architect example is not a strawman at all: the royalties are just insignificant.

    armchair nomad said:
    “If you make a widget, in 20 years it will be useless. In 5 years it will be useless. There is a reason for the discrepancy in the lenght of protection.”

    I won’t enumerate all of the patented technologies from over a hundred years ago that are still useful (such as Edison’s light-bulb that still has niche applications). It should suffice to say that you have fallen into the “new is better” trap. People weren’t idiots 100 years ago any more than they are now.

    When I brought up the discrepancy between Patent law and trademark law, I had a real widget in mind. The software would be safety-critical and take years to design and formally verify. Since the device would not work without the software, any copy-cats would have to duplicate the Software development effort when the patents expire. I would rather they pore over my work and suggest potential improvements than duplicate the effort; possibly putting lives at risk if they don’t take the same care I do in the formal verification.

    The original copyright term was only 14 years; why should “copyright” be treated as inheritance? Why not pay authors and artists more up-front so that they can live off their savings when they retire (like everybody else)?

  67. Nice inveigling
    > I think a lot of people on both sides of this argument are missing the valid points of the other. You’re all backed into your bunkers and unwilling to see things from the other’s perspective.

    Not so fast!! You’re not addressing both sides. You’re addressing your artist’s point of view only while deluding to addressing “the other’s perspective.” If you did see things from all sides, you wouldn’t have made hyperboles, contradictions, and resort to emotional pleas and lies.

    > Because time, money, and effort were spend making the product, and even after it is released, advertising and promoting that product is required…

    If some people can get their 15 minutes of fame using youtube, you can use the same method using the internet; and it wouldn’t cost you any advertising dollars going to youtube for instance.

    > It is hard work to write, record, produce, release and promote music and an artist.

    As it stands now, the Copyright Act allows until 50 years after you die to profit from your work. This means you will be able to garner revenue even after you die plus 50 years. Why are you complaining and whining it’s so hard?

    > But it is a different story entirely when millions of people are distributing millions of copies of your work, and costing you, as an artist, lots of money.
    > You are sharing. Redistributing is not like lending a CD to a friend, it’s like copying it 3 billion times and giving a copy to everyone on earth with a computer.

    By your logic, you’ve lost $30 billion dollars. How can you justify losing $30 billion dollars, or even $3 billion dollars, when labels have been known to pay radio stations to play their music, not to mention they give away free music to stations?

    The fact is labels pay radio stations to silence the competition. If the station plays cartel music only, then non-cartel music will be silenced without paying, thus, raising the barrier to entry for non-cartel artists. The internet allows anyone to be heard at minimal distribution costs. Artists benefit greatly from the internet also by selling directly, but you look like an astroturfer.

    > Where is the incentive to try and make music your living if the world believes it’s ok to just copy it an infinite amount of times.

    This lame point has been abused repeatedly, which is clearly proof you’re an astroturfer. Where is the incentive to try and make music before Copyright Law existed? Where is the incentive to try and make music before money, markets, and collusions were invented?

    > A popcorn vendors popcorn is not infinite, for one. You can only give away as much as you bought. If that were the case with music, you would be able to give away ONE copy of that song

    Why is C32 trying to convert a song’s infinite copiable characteristic into a finite bag of popcorn then? It does so to prevent “it’s like copying it 3 billion times and giving a copy to everyone on earth with a computer.”

    > I am not a fan of DRM. I am not a fan of the music industry.

    Says you, but your contradiction is again proof you’re an astroturfer. In case you don’t know your contradiction, it’s whining “it’s like copying it 3 billion times and giving a copy to everyone on earth with a computer” and then say “I am not a fan of DRM.” DRM and anti-circumvention (C32) prohibit “it’s like copying it 3 billion times and giving a copy to everyone on earth with a computer,” and temporarily pacifies your whining.

    > However, as an artist, I find it ignorant as well how the people no the other side of the isle don’t realize that distributing millions of copies of someone’s hard work IS taking money out of their pocket.

    I highly doubt you’re an artist. Where is your “other’s perspective” here? People are helping you distribute your work for you. They’re taking the costs upon themselves to spread your work in hopes that others will buy and contribute back to you as they have. Why are you biting the hands that feed you?

  68. Nice inveigling (continued)
    > Sure, artists can make money in many other ways these days, but that does not mean that they should not be able to make money from the sale of their music either.
    > Support the musicians you like. No musician wants to work in a fucking restaurant or repair computers or whatever they do to make money, they want to focus on writing and promoting their music

    The question then becomes are you any good? Do you have talents that sell, or just talent that plays? Just because you put out crap, doesn’t mean you’re owed a living plus 50 years after you die. Why don’t you spend the time making music people want to cherish instead of whining?

    Nevertheless, if you are an artist, you would know instead of “work in a fucking restaurant or repair computers or whatever they do to make money.” This is more proof you don’t have a clue what artists do to make money while trying to get their music careers going.

    > To the recording industry – Adapt, lower your standard of living a little bit and maybe sell a mansion or two, and cater to what your customers want, is fairly priced music that they can use however they want for their own personal use.

    Why are you wasting time pleaing to the monopolists? C32 and ACTA won’t change because you’re addressing the wrong problem. In fact, you’re just telling us what we want to hear, while C32 and ACTA remains the problems they are. You didn’t even speak out against C32, and sound like you endorse it by ignoring it altogether.

    > What I am arguing is they be given rights to control who is able to distriubute the material that they have created.

    You want anti-circumvention without actually saying so. You’re hiding the fact you endorse C32 in secret. You’re hiding the fact you want ISPs to be internet traffic cops on your behalf. You’re probably endorsing 3-strikes in secret also. Through your winded and sugar coated drivel, you haven’t mentioned anything about C32′s anti-circumvention of DRM. Prove me wrong by explaining what you disagree with in C32 and what you want fixed in C32.

    The *IAA want what you want, controlling distribution and no taxing levies. Surprise, surprise, you and they think the same, astroturfer!

    > However the term “used” is left wide open for debate as to what it actually means. Is “using” a product making it available on the internet and distributing millions of copies? Is that an “educational purpose” because you’re educating people about a band or artist?

    Why are you spreading lies with your rhetoric question, astroturfer?

    > If you make a widget, in 20 years it will be useless. In 5 years it will be useless. There is a reason for the discrepancy in the lenght of protection.

    CRIA said “patent the design of a new widget,” CRIA did not mean the physical widget itself. “Design” is the keyword, but you conveniently spin the meaning to your advantage. In this case, prove to me the toilet invention is useless and prove to me the toilet paper invention is useless.

    > Good debate.

    It’s good because people buy your astroturfing sugar-coating? Not once did you mention using the internet as an alternative distribution channel for your music, which most people are demanding you to do. Nice try deceiving, F for effort astroturfer!

  69. armchair nomad says:

    @phillipsjk and @Tom
    @phillipsjk
    You and I probably agree on more than this short conversation has allowed us to realize. I agree with your last point. The ultimate goal is finding a way for artists to live off of their music/art/photography/whatever without having to waste time making money for somebody else doing something they hate. The means to that end are never going to be easy to tilt towards fair deals for artists unless they take it upon themselves to find ways around the system.

    @Tom
    I started to read your post, then started to skim, then just decided that I was wasting my time after you said I was “whining” and an “astroturfer” a million times. I am attempting to have an adult debate with other adults, as a consumer, a musician and yes, an artist. You have no idea who I am and what I have done in my life. I have no agenda man. If you like, I can send you some of my work.

    If you can respond with a non-insulting comment that sounds like someone other than a 19 year old know it all wrote, I will gladly speak some more on this. If not, then I will just ignore you, because while I am certain I’m not an “astroturfer” I’m not so certain you are nothing more than a message board “flamer”.

  70. armchair nomad says:

    @Tom one more time…
    “It’s good because people buy your astroturfing sugar-coating? Not once did you mention using the internet as an alternative distribution channel for your music, which most people are demanding you to do. Nice try deceiving, F for effort astroturfer!”

    When I said “Many big artists are tired of the mainstream music business and have found ways around it…”, I was insinuating that if some larger acts are deciding to go it alone, they’re realizing what many independent artists already have; ie that the INTERNET is the most valuable tool a musician has, other than what he/she uses to make his or her music. Did I need to spell it out to you that when I say they “found ways around it” that I was speaking about the internet? Radiohead released their album for free online. Trent Reznor (NIN) has railed against the industry for a very long time. Nobody has been more outspoken. So yes, I guess I’m an astroturfer who’s promoting the ideas of musicians who have protested the music industry vigorously. Make sense to anyone else but Tom?

    While we’re at it, let me take a try at an accusation. You think I’m an astroturfer, well I think that because I said this:

    “I am not defending how crazy copyright has gotten. I feel that now the clampdown on consumers by these corporations, with the help of the governments of the world, is not only being used as a tool to hold up an old business model to keep someones pockets fat, but also as a means of silencing freedom of speech, and of basic control over communication and information.” that you are some government or corporate beaurocrat who is actually astroturfing yourself, saying what everyone else wants to hear while trying to discredit me.

    How’s that for an assumption?

  71. phillipsjk says:

    @armchair nomad
    I think part of my point is that long copyright terms may depress artists’s wages: they are told they (or their children) can make it up in royalties at some unspecified point in the future.

    Much like how the superstars get millions per movie, yet the extras get minimum wage if they are lucky: on the promise that they can “make it big” someday.

    I have an interest in the Free (as in freedom) software movement. I see the same thing there: people code for a project for free, hoping to land a high-paying programing job. In the long term, I think improvements small and large should be commissioned, rather than relying on volunteer work. To a certain extent, that is happening already. The large Gnu/Linux vendors hire programmers to do the boring integration work not many want to volunteer for.

    Incidentally, one reason I have not pursued a “piracy is a crime parody” is I am sacred it might make money. Then, I would be on the hook for managing royalties for over 100 years. (The other reason is procrastination: I haven’t even done any test renderings of the special effects I want to use.)

  72. Nice deflection
    I’m treating you like an adult. If you were not, I wouldn’t have bothered to quote you and just said you’re an astroturfer because a child wouldn’t understand. Instead of being an adult and address my points, you took offense like a child.

    A board flamer I may be by your standard, but I’ve proven you wrong and exposed you as a liar. Reread my first paragraph again. It’s good you ignored my points, and it just proves I’m right. This is basically what I wanted from you, but you conveniently ignored it:

    “Prove me wrong by explaining what you disagree with in C32 and what you want fixed in C32.” Or, you love it as is?

    Even if you’re an artist, do you think Loreena McKennitt is not an astroturfer posting “an op-ed supporting copyright reform in the Winnipeg Free Press?” Loreena McKennitt doesn’t know what Loreena McKennitt is talking about. This is why Michael Geist debunked Loreena McKennitt’s mockery of “user rights” and other comments. When the Highest Court of the land Unanimously gave a Balanced ruling regarding Fair Dealing, who’s Loreena McKennitt to deride that?

    > that you are some government or corporate beaurocrat who is actually astroturfing yourself, saying what everyone else wants to hear while trying to discredit me.
    How’s that for an assumption?

    Right!! I’m James Moore’s little puppet who’s a “radical extremists” speaking out against his retarded bill C-32. Go ahead and assume anything you want. It only makes me laugh. And no, I don’t need or want to read your life story, even if it’s most interesting because it’d be off topic.

    By the way, I didn’t assume/accuse you’re an astroturfer, I said I proved you are an astroturfer. The CRIA wanted the same things you wanted, saying the same things you’ve said, and that’s why the poster CRIA called you on it also. You basically write like a CRIA’s parrot with some sugar-coating. Maybe you’ve been around them for too long, who knows. Nonetheless, the only person who discredited you is yourself, for I only pointed specifically to your discrediting yourself. If you have a problem with being proven an astroturfer, it’s in your interests not to write like one? Who knows, I’m not you.

    > It’s not like the internet was created for the sole intention of stealing music.

    I saw it, but didn’t comment on it. Lies like these are too easy to spot, and they ring my laugh bells.

    Again, this is the only thing I need to know from you because you haven’t mentioned a word on C32:
    “Prove me wrong by explaining what you disagree with in C32 and what you want fixed in C32.” Or, you love it as is?

  73. phillipsjk says:

    @tom
    I am CIRA; I made one of the 2 ‘CIRA’ posts in another thread with exactly 2 posts.

    First time was TooLong;Didn’tRead, but upon further consideration, you may be right. Armchair nomad says he/she does not like DRM, but not why. Even the CIRA may hate the term “DRM” because its brand image is so poor (even though it is a nebulous concept with no hard definition).

  74. et al
    You seem to be swinging around 3 different, but related, topics.

    a) Why copyright? What are appropriate terms and rights, on both sides of the issue?

    b) How does an artist make money in the modern digital age?

    c) Bill C-32 and ACTA measures.

    They are related, but you won’t make headway in understanding if the topic keeps shifting around so much. The fact of the matter is that C-32 and ACTA won’t help the artist or the public/audience. You have danced around this enough that it looks like you actually agree on this. The difference is related to how an artist makes a living, with only the reaction that “something must be done, even if it’s the wrong thing” separating you from agreement.

    I’m not even going to spend time on the first point above. That is something that would need a complete, and focused, article all to itself. Personally, I feel that copyright needs to return to it’s original intention of supplying just enough, but no more, artist granted rights to ensure the production of artistic works for the public good.

    As to how the artist makes money in the digital age? Well, like everything else the digital age and technology touches, everything changes. None of the old “rules” apply. You have to think creatively and develop new ideas. The artistic/copyright world isn’t the first one to be challenged, and it won’t be the last. If you look at the single example of the advertising industry, you will see lots of examples of companies and individuals that couldn’t adapt, and lots of them that built brand new ways of doing business and thrive. I can’t tell any specific artist how *they* can be successful, they have to figure that out themselves. But there are plenty of different models already being tested, with more on the way.

    Arguing about principles belongs in my first point above. I agree that an artist should have rights, perhaps call them copyright, in an appropriate balance with the rights of the public. But principles alone won’t put a roof over your head and food on the table.

    The reality of the digital age is something we all have to grapple with, not just artists. Adapt or become irrelevant, those are the choices we all face. Artists and copyright are not being “singled out” by advancing technology or changing society. In one way or another we are all being shaped or changed, deal with it.

    You actually seem to agree that C-32 and ACTA will not address the issues, and in fact is poorly constructed “law” for the future we face. So why not just openly agree on this point and move to more constructive discussion around the other 2 points?

  75. armchair nomad says:

    rediculous
    Tom, you are being ignorant. You didn’t “prove” anything moron. You “assumed” you know my intentions. As well, you also ignore some of my points. And why is it a lie for me to say “the internet wasn’t created to steal music so why should ISP’s have to fork over money to pay the music industry”? How is that a lie? These are my opinions. I disagree with DRM because it restricts a consumers ability to do what they want with what they purchase. However, I do not believe that “doing what they want” with it means the consumer should have the right to freely distribute the music as they wish. That defeats the purpose of giving any copyrights at all to the artists.

    As far as CR-32 is concerned, I don’t know much about it and haven’t read it’s contents. I was more or less responding to many of the responses to the article, which I did read.

    “Right!! I’m James Moore’s little puppet who’s a “radical extremists” speaking out against his retarded bill C-32. Go ahead and assume anything you want. It only makes me laugh. And no, I don’t need or want to read your life story, even if it’s most interesting because it’d be off topic.”

    First off, you are saying the same thing about me. I’m speaking out against the industry practices, and yet defending an ARTISTS ABILITY to control who gets to distribute their work to massive amounts of people. You are basically arguing that my points are wrong, which means you must believe that artists should maintain no control over the copyright of their work, and that anybody should be able to do what they want with it. If you want to make a copy for your car, for your friend, etc…you shouldn’t be restricted from doing so. But it’s different when a million people have copies on their computers that they didn’t even pay for in any way, and are letting everyone with a computer download it. There is a balance that has to be maintained to make everyone happy.

    And I didn’t say I’d want you to read my life story, I said that I could send you some of my work if you wanted, which was a response to your “yeah right you’re not an artist” comment, which was simply childish.

    And besides, I don’t even fucking live in Canada so this bill doesn’t even affect me at the moment. ACTA does however, and I don’t like what’s going on with it in any way. I didn’t support Obama’s appointing 5 RIAA lawyers to the Justice Department, I don’t agree with the 1.92 MILLION dollar fine that Jammie Thomas-Rasset was just slapped with for sharing 24 songs on Kazaa either. Believe what you wish, but you are dead wrong about me, and you didn’t “prove me wrong” about anything…since we’re all just stating our opinions anyways.

  76. armchair nomad says:

    and..
    I did say why I didn’t like DRM. I didn’t say I don’t like the “term” DRM. I said:

    “I am not a fan of DRM. I am not a fan of the music industry. I only used Emusic for a long time, mostly to buy independent music, DRM free, because I boycotted Apple’s restrictions on using the music on other players besides the Ipod.”

  77. phillipsjk says:

    name calling isn’t productive anyway
    Once again Oldguy shows his wisdom.

    So, Armchair nomad, You have no-opinion on bill C-32 because you haven’t read it? fair enough. It is sort of like the DMCA, except it includes suggestions of the 2009 Canadian copyright consultation. http://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/008.nsf/eng/h_00001.html

    As far I can tell, almost nobody is happy with the bill, so the ministers assume it must be a good compromise.

    You enter the thread stating the following:
    “I think a lot of people on both sides of this argument are missing the valid points of the other. You’re all backed into your bunkers and unwilling to see things from the other’s perspective.”

    You are not talking about the Op-Ed that was thoroughly debunked, IMO. We understand artists are frustrated. We understand that artists also have to deal with the computing consoles slowly replacing general-purpose computers. What we don’t understand is why some artist feel “something” must be done, even if it risks causing more damage than file-sharing.

    My personal opinion is that DRM is literally incredibly bad. So bad, that nobody seriously believes the worst possible abuses will ever take place. Maybe they assume the police will look the other way when everybody is made a criminal for owning circumvention devices. It’s not like there aren’t other silly laws on the books.

    That is the real risk of implementing the 1996 WIPO treaties: copyright law will become a joke. You think pirates disrespect copyright law now?

    As far as I know, most non-commercial “pirates” are just hoarders: they don’t have time to listen to everything they “stole”, so not all copies are lost sales. The people who pirate or copy informally are free advertising. They may even buy your product because they want to support the artists they listen to. One thing I find interesting is that pirates do respect one aspect of copyright law: they frown on plagiarism. Sites offering unauthorized .torrents of movies often link the the IMDB website to give more information about the file. More free advertising.

    Will credit where credit is due get thrown out with the bathwater if copyright becomes even more widely disrespected? I hope not, but I could see it happening. Artists like to argue that their creative work takes years of training and that few can do what they can do. If true, copyright is not needed. Through innovation, true artists will have an edge in a land dominated by copycats. Originals manuscripts and installation (or concerts) will become valuable; since copies are almost free (the marginal cost is small).


  78. armchair nomad said:
    “However the term “used” is left wide open for debate as to what it actually means. Is “using” a product making it available on the internet and distributing millions of copies? Is that an “educational purpose” because you’re educating people about a band or artist?”

    Touche, how about personal use and exerpts for educational purposes (ala Amazon music sales)? Sharing with millions obviously goes beyound either of these uses.

    phillipsjk said:
    “As far as I know, most non-commercial “pirates” are just hoarders: they don’t have time to listen to everything they “stole”, so not all copies are lost sales. The people who pirate or copy informally are free advertising. They may even buy your product because they want to support the artists they listen to. One thing I find interesting is that pirates do respect one aspect of copyright law: they frown on plagiarism. Sites offering unauthorized .torrents of movies often link the the IMDB website to give more information about the file. More free advertising.”

    A absolutely agree…I fall in to this category, even with physical media. Including my wife’s music we have close to 1000 CDs and we have over 1100 DVDs and BDs…more than I could ever possibly watch or lisen to. Many hoarder have no idea why they’re doing it…for me it’s akin to a hobby. I haven’t downloaded or copied a song illegally in around 10 years. I’ll probably get chastized for this, but I admit I have, at least I think I still have them, since they haven’t been touched in years, close to 30000 songs that I amassed back in the dark days of university, ’96-’99. Why? Because I was a student, living in dorm, with no money and with close to 200 other dormmates over the 3 years I had access to a vast variety of CDs…mostly I was bored. In those days CD enoding to MP3 was command-line and took longer to encode than it actually took the CD to play. I can’t even count the number of CDs or movies I’ve purchased after listening to or watching a digital copy…in the hundreds though. It’s absolutely free advertising, but of course, if you’re content is garbage, then you might lose sales because people will hear it and not buy it. Gone are the days of people buying everything an artist releases. Most people I know are iPod nuts, only wanting the singles and could care less about having the whole album.

    I’ve often considered deleting the digital content I collected while in dorm, but I’m very busy and inherantly lazy so I just never get around to separating the purchased content from the copied content. …one of these days.

  79. phillipsjk says:

    @IamME
    You may as well keep your infringing copies in case the originals get lost to fire. It has happened over and over again. Not sure how you would negotiate returning unauthorized back-up copies though: brown paper envelope filled with USB keys?

  80. armchair nomad says:

    @Tom and @end user
    And you took my quote “It’s not like the internet was created for the sole intention of stealing music” out of context to prove your point. The actual quote was:

    “I disagree with any levy or tax put on a service (like ISPs) to pay another industry (the music industry) for their losses. It’s not like the internet was created for the sole intention of stealing music.”

    end user said:
    “I don’t think anyone here is saying that artists have no right to copyright”

    Sure they are…people such as Tom believe that he is “helping the musicians out”, out of the kindness of his heart, and should therefore be thanked.

    “People are helping you distribute your work for you. They’re taking the costs upon themselves to spread your work in hopes that others will buy and contribute back to you as they have. Why are you biting the hands that feed you?”

    He is arguing against an artists control of copyright and distribution. There is a difference between word of mouth, and distribution. It is now clear to me that you have no belief that an artist should have control over the distribution of their work, because you are such a good guy and just want to give away their music to as many people as possible. That’s laughable.

    Let’s say you designed a new media player that was expected to sell very well. Then I came along with the money and ability to make a perfect copy of that product before you put it to market. Then I decided that the first day your product hit the market, I would post people at every store your product would be sold in with thousands of copies of your product and for every person that said they were going in to buy one, I gave them one for free. All the while claiming I was “promoting for you, so you should be thanking me”. Sounds ridiculous right?

  81. so called user rights …
    i see she has no problem using the public domain knowledge of mankind for performing her art. from violins to the music notation system, from guitars to common melody patterns. yet, irritatingly, disturbingly, disgustingly, comes up blurting out poison in a very ugly fashion. well then, i forbid her from using any instrument, invention, technique belonging to public and even any muse, inspiration she may or may not get from this world, since any kind of inspiration will be invoked by the world she is living in as of now. let her try to produce music without the resources of the human civilization, until she learns to respect the rights of that civilization.

  82. phillipsjk says:

    @Archair Nomad
    Tom said:
    “If some people can get their 15 minutes of fame using youtube, you can use the same method using the internet; and it wouldn’t cost you any advertising dollars going to youtube for instance.”

    From that, I gathered that Tom was suggesting you put your own stuff on YouTube, not that he would take choice away by doing it for you.

    I can’t speak for anybody else, but I feel copyright should be respected for a Limited period of time, like 20 years. That should be enough time to re-coup your investment and come up with something new to sell for the next 20 years.

    My point about the pirates is not that you should be thanking them, but that they are not “all bad”; piracy has unexpected benefits as well. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lost_film
    ‘But the largest cause of silent film loss was intentional destruction, as silent films were perceived as having little or no commercial value after the end of the silent era by 1930. Film preservationist Robert A. Harris has said, “Most of the early films did not survive because of wholesale junking by the studios. There was no thought of ever saving these films. They simply needed vault space and the materials were expensive to house.”[5]‘

    George Lucas and Disney only release re-mastered and touched-up copies of their films, effectively renewing the copyright every 10-20 years. The only way to preserve the original Star Wars theatrical release is copyright infringement. By not preserving these important historical works, Artists and distributors are breaking their contract with the public: to release their work into the public domain in exchange for a limited monopoly on reproduction.

    From that perspective, it does not matter if you think the pirates are helping you or not: they are performing a social service that is not cheap (preserving important works over the long term.) That said, commercial pirates are a real problem. Unlike “casual” pirates, they displace real sales because their customers think they are getting “legitimate” copies: http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/content_display/news/e3i82a006de3290b1a69fc47780cb674ecd “Hollywood faces new piracy threat: Illegal sub services on the rise, exec tells Cinema Expo” by By Carl DiOrio June 21, 2010, 07:33 PM ET

  83. phillipsjk said:
    “I can’t speak for anybody else, but I feel copyright should be respected for a Limited period of time, like 20 years. That should be enough time to re-coup your investment and come up with something new to sell for the next 20 years.”

    Originally copyrights were valid for 14 years and could be extended to 28 years under certain circumstances. After that it became public domain.

    “My point about the pirates is not that you should be thanking them, but that they are not “all bad”; piracy has unexpected benefits as well.”

    In respect to lost and rare films, services such as Video Screams and what used to be Blackest Heart Media perform a similar service. Mind you, this is not piracy par se as it uses a loophole in the Berne convention. In any case they provide legal copies of extraordinarily rare films or uncut / original versions of films otherwise not available in any form. A good example would be Blade Runner, up until recently, short of finding and original VHS (Which I have) a service like this was the ONLY way to get the original cut with the original audio track and gory scenes intact.

  84. fun fun fun
    > Tom, you are being ignorant. You didn’t “prove” anything moron.

    First off, hahahahaha!!

    > You “assumed” you know my intentions.

    I did not assume anything. I quoted you on purpose as evidence to your intention. Although you didn’t say specifically you agreed with the DRM, or your-majesty’s-better-term TPM, provisions trumping fair dealing in C-32, but everything you wrote endorsed TPM with a royal blessing.

    > And why is it a lie for me to say “the internet wasn’t created to steal music so why should ISP’s have to fork over money to pay the music industry”? How is that a lie? These are my opinions.

    It’s not what I quoted. Although you addressed the quote later, I didn’t quote out of context. You want to sugar-coat a lie, so people will swallow it. If you had bothered to read C-32, you will know it’s a lie from the exact quote I used. If you had bothered to read C-32, you’d know you’re astroturfing on a board that wants balance. Go and post your knowledgeable opion at a *IAA site because they’d call that advocacy instead. They may even pay you, ask about their pay advocacy.

    > I’m speaking out against the industry practices, and yet defending an ARTISTS ABILITY to control who gets to distribute their work to massive amounts of people.

    Speak all you want against the cartels. However, they’re your saviour by buying off James Moore and many other politicians around the world, and give you TPM protections in law. Just because you dislike the term DRM and favour TPM, nothing changes the fact that cartels use or will use TPM/DRM in Copyright Law to steal the public’s freedom. Thus, your position is contradictory. If you had bother to read C-32, you’d know who gets to distribute a work, instead of repeating the mantra of the *IAA who you love so much (I mean hate, I mean love, I mean hate, which side are you on again?)

    > There is a balance that has to be maintained to make everyone happy.

    That balance is already there in C-32, but since TPM/DRM trumps basically everything, the whole fair dealing rights is given to copyright owners to control. Once again, if the Unanimous (9/9 Supreme Court Justices) Supreme Court of Canada ruled fair dealing cannot be discarded, then why do copyright owners are allowed to supersede 9/9 Supreme Court Justices in C-32???

    > And I didn’t say I’d want you to read my life story, I said that I could send you some of my work if you wanted, which was a response to your “yeah right you’re not an artist” comment, which was simply childish.

    It was a mistake about your life story rather than your work, got side-tracked. Anyway, this just shows even artists can astrosturf, not only *IAA lawyers and agents.

    > And besides, I don’t even fucking live in Canada so this bill doesn’t even affect me at the moment. ACTA does however, and I don’t like what’s going on with it in any way. I didn’t support Obama’s appointing 5 RIAA lawyers to the Justice Department, I don’t agree with the 1.92 MILLION dollar fine that Jammie Thomas-Rasset was just slapped with for sharing 24 songs on Kazaa either.

    It would seem you voted for Obama then, which means you already know and live with the DMCA. How has the DMCA allowed you to collect more revenues by stealing people’s fair dealing rights? How has the DMCA allowed you to control your work from being appear in P2P sites? Canadians don’t like Americans telling us what to do, especially C-32.

    What you agree or disagree with the case doesn’t matter. You wanted people not to infringe your copyright by distributing your work to “3 billion people,” so a fine of $1.92 million will stop Jammie Thomas-Rasset from doing it again. Would you agree that a $1.92 million fine is better than some obsolete TPM?

    > He [me, tom] is arguing against an artists control of copyright and distribution.

    No, I read the Copyright Act and it’s reasonable, and then comes DRM in C-32 and then it is totally unacceptable. Your failure to read C-32 and advocating TPM is what I’m against. TPMs serves no effective purpose, forces people to pay for an obsolete technology, forces people to obey an obsolete law enforcing obsolete technology, and steal fair dealing rights as 9/9 Supreme Court of Canada Justices had acknowledge is important and is just. I don’t need 9/9 Supreme Court Justices to tell me fair dealing is important and is just, but having them gave such a ruling prevents cartel cronies from wasting the courts’ time in the future.

    Rovi, formerly named Macrovision, is a multi-billion dollar company that produces TPM. If we’re not paying for TPM, how did this company get so big?
    http://quotes.nasdaq.com/asp/SummaryQuote.asp?symbol=ROVI&selected=ROVI

  85. Macrovision
    Tom said:
    “Rovi, formerly named Macrovision, is a multi-billion dollar company that produces TPM. If we’re not paying for TPM, how did this company get so big?”

    As an elaboration…Macrovision has been around since the 80′s (Or early 90′s) and is easily bypassed…hence it’s only artificial security for those who use it. As with any TMP, it only hurts those who want to legally use it. Those who don’t care or don’t respect it, will only ignore it. I would argure the “don’t respect” camp is getting much larger these days.

    As for the 1.92 MILLION dollar fine that Jammie Thomas-Rasset received..is the amount justified? It’s a fine that she could NEVER feasibly even begin to pay back an more than she’ll probably make in her lifetime. All that ensures is that she will never share again…AND she will never buy any music again, I bet, along with most of her friends and family. Add to that, the enormous amount of negative press the music industry received over this, tell me how does this help the artist or music industry in the least? The short of it is, don’t sue your customers for lost pennies…nothing good can come of it. Microsoft Windows is the most pirated software in the world…do they sue their customers? Of course not. Why? It’s BAD for business!!!

  86. phillipsjk says:

    Loophole?
    “As for the 1.92 MILLION dollar fine that Jammie Thomas-Rasset received..is the amount justified? It’s a fine that she could NEVER feasibly even begin to pay back an more than she’ll probably make in her lifetime.”

    Remember that copyright lasts the author’s lifetime plus 70 years in the states. She can write a book about the ordeal, sell the movie rights and over ~120 years she and her estate can pay the fine using the “long tail.”

    Captcha: “grieve robbery”


  87. …kind of like those crazy 100 year “family” mortgages they’ve started doing in the US. There’s something to pass on to your children…borne in to extreme dept.

  88. armchair nomad says:


    To Tom:
    If you wanted to argue against the points specifically, you should have done so. But your insistence that you “know” I am an astroturfer, and your insistence on being 100% confrontational in this discussion when others are being perfectly cordial and conversational, shows me you lack some serious social skills.

    The fact that you may have a few good points doesn’t negate your rediculous accusations, which I tried to point out with sarcasm that you took way too seriously in your response. I am finished speaking with you. The fact that you’re so fucking arrogant causes me to cringe when I read your posts, and I don’t even feel compelled to respond. Smoke a bowl or something man. Or maybe you did and your just fucking paranoid.

    To the rest of you, I appreciate your viewpoints and will read this over a few more times and respond when I get time. Many changes are keeping me occupied lately.

  89. armchair nomad says:

    @Tom
    And one more thing, since you’re just so…compelling. Then I am finished with you.
    I do not agree with DRM
    I do not agree with restrictions on media products.
    I do not agree on making it illegal to copy CDs
    I do not agree with TPM
    I do not agree with COPY PROTECTION BEING PUT ON ANYTHING!
    I do not agree with ACTA
    I do not agree with CR-32

    Look in the mirror and say “I’m an arrogant prick” 5 times a day and maybe you’ll realize it someday.

  90. armchair nomad says:

    drunk..
    Ok, I was a bit drunk in my last message on this board lol. Did not mean to drag the discussion down into the dumps.

  91. Arrogance peddling
    > As an elaboration…Macrovision has been around since the 80′s (Or early 90′s) and is easily bypassed…

    My point is people are advocating for allowing DRM and make exceptions to defeat it for fair dealing, when we should really say no to it. It is logical to me advocating for a DRM ban because I don’t want to pay for an instrument from the cartels to steal my freedom. The reason to use DRM is just a big lie anyway.

    > All that ensures is that she will never share again…AND she will never buy any music again, I bet, along with most of her friends and family. Add to that, the enormous amount of negative press the music industry received over this, tell me how does this help the artist or music industry in the least?

    It will help preventing cartel members from recruiting more talent. More and more real artists (not astroturfers) will want to get far away from the *IAA, and maybe some of them will use the Open model, like in the software industry. Jammie Thomas-Rasset is an example of the *IAA’s corruption, but Jammie Thomas-Rasset is like a martyr instead.

    > Microsoft Windows is the most pirated software in the world…do they sue their customers?

    They don’t attack individuals who infringe, but I’ve seen videos in the news where they raided hardware retailers, and yelling violently at the employees. Whether they sue these shops, I don’t know.

    > The fact that you’re so fucking arrogant causes me to cringe when I read your posts, and I don’t even feel compelled to respond. Smoke a bowl or something man. Or maybe you did and your just fucking paranoid.

    Again, hahahaha!!

    You, an American, who didn’t read C-32 and posting in a Canadian board making claims an astroturfer would and call me arrogant? Funny, and hilarious even, the DMCA is an American law that was in effect for 12 years and even one of its creator claimed it is bad – and you tried to shove the DMCA down people’s throat the world over; you actually called me “I’m an arrogant prick.” hahahahaha

    In your world, up is down, slavery is freedom, airport stripping is civil liberty, wrong is right, fiction is fact… Maybe if you spent the time guzzling booze to read the DMCA, instead of C-32, you wouldn’t have written like an astroturfer. Sure, tell us what we want to hear after being exposed. If I didn’t reply to your drivel, you’d still make claims of an astroturfer and someone else would have replied somewhere eventually. Don’t let facts get in the way though – here have some more booze. hahahahaha

  92. armchair nomad says:

    haha
    Yes, I am an american posting on a Canadian board, because I enjoy Michael Geists blog. I enjoy it because I agree with the things he writes.

    But ok, you’re right Tom. I’m an astroturfer, hired by the music cartels to find message boards and argue for DRM and restricting people’s freedom. You figured me out. Caught red handed. Damnit thanks for blowing my cover. It is obvious to me that you are missing missing the point I tried to make and there is no hope in trying to explain further.

    The only other thing I will say is that I went to school for Audio Engineering at the Art Institute of Washington. I wrote a paper on the state of the music industry for a class a few years back, and if you like I can send it to you. I’m sure it would change your mind about my intentions.

  93. @Tom
    Well, as nice at it sounds, we’re likely stuck with DRM models, but it should not be illegal to break locks for private use. I like the Brazil model which actually punishes content producers if they use an overly strict DRM that infinges upon fair use.

    The only problem I see with an open model in music is the potential for market saturation.

    The sad goal for many game/software developers, not all as more and more shift to an open model, is to develop a product which get noticed by some software giant like Microsoft or EA and to get bought out…that’s really where the big payday is for many of these small producers. I never claimed Microsoft was “nice”, just that they were smart enough not to sue their customers. Commercial infringement in computer shops is a different story and they should know better.

  94. The connection between Copyright reform and earning a living.
    “What copyright reform has to do with concert venues, performers or popcorn sellers is anyone’s guess”

    The theory posited by the legions of illegal down-loaders was that even though artists may not be getting paid for their recorded music, they would get their reward(s) by touring. That has turned out to be a lie.

    And so we need, as we believed all along, strong copyright laws to protect our way of making a living. The sense of entitlement that Geist and his minions exhibit is one of the reasons for the “so called user rights” that McKennitt referred to. Right now if there are any rights of any kind for the creator that will help us stop this decimation of our livelihood, I am not aware of them.

    However, the time for nice small talk is through.

  95. phillipsjk says:

    @tom
    You know, it IS possible for somebody to disagree with you without being an “astroturfer.”

    The term “astroturfer” implies an organized campaign to give a appearance of a an spontaneous “grass roots” campaign.

    @armchair nomad said:
    “He is arguing against an artists control of copyright and distribution. There is a difference between word of mouth, and distribution. It is now clear to me that you have no belief that an artist should have control over the distribution of their work, because you are such a good guy and just want to give away their music to as many people as possible. That’s laughable.”

    What do you mean by “control”? Proposed copyright reform like bill C-32 is all about control: for the distributors, not the artists.

    If the average user does not have the freedom to share your work on P2P networks, neither do you. Some P2P protocols (FTP is a P2P protocol) like Bittorrent don’t work well if the recipients don’t share their bandwidth by uploading whatever they are downloading.

    If the average user is no longer allowed to buy a “general-purpose computer” capable of text, music, picture and video editing; such devices will be more expensive for the artists that need them.

    If you are posting in response to a sensationalist speech like:
    “(The Electronic Frontier Foundation, Public Knowledge, the Consumer Electronics Assn. and the Computer and Communications Industry Assn.) have an extremist, radical anti-copyright agenda. They all have an economic interest in the theft of our music or paying little to nothing for it. [And] they are intellectually dishonest in how they approach these fights.” – NMPA president/CEO David Isrealite, During the National Assn. of Music Publishers’ annual meeting on June 16, 2010 http://www.billboard.biz/bbbiz/search/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1004099016

    You may be an “astroturfer” without realizing it. In the above speech, “extremist, radical anti-copyright agenda” means disagreeing with more than what the royalty payments should be.

  96. Dumb Terminals
    phillipsjk said:
    “If the average user is no longer allowed to buy a “general-purpose computer” capable of text, music, picture and video editing; such devices will be more expensive for the artists that need them.”

    This is where computers are going, we’re going back in to the age of dumb terminals, except now the terminals are infinately more powerful than they have to be. Has anyone else noticed the trend of pre-built computers getting smaller, yes, but also less powerful? On top of that, we’re heading in the direction where I can see software development firms striking deals with hardware manufacturers for specific hardware licensing. If you want to do certain tasks, you’ll not only have to meet certain minimum requirements, you’ll need certain hardware…software, games, movies, or music that only work on nVidia or ATi video cards or only work with Soundblaster soundcards. We’re being rail-roaded in to a propietary world where the the computer “power-user” will become more and more of a rarity.

    I’m probably the only person I know who does not own a console gaming system. We are probably going to get a Wii for my kids for Xmas, but I haven’t owned a console since the original Nintendo. …propietary systems dedicated to a single task.

  97. phillipsjk says:

    Re: dumb terminals
    I don’t really see that happening, AAA games advertising NVidia aside.

    More likely, you will buy a box that does a specific set of tasks. The actual line between hardware and software will be hidden from the user even more than it is now.

    In my vision, word processors will be back, filling the niche that used to be filled by type-writers; only they would track keys used by “Information Rights Management.”

    People interested in photo, music, or video editing would buy dedicated consoles for that purpose; likely also incorporating some form of DRM.

    I suppose the General-purpose computer will become a “Web-browsing” device dependent on “web 2.0″ :P

    Don’t worry, in this new world, DNLA will make video playback and document printing easy over the network: just don’t try copying anything.

  98. Spare me the popcorn: focus on ‘the nut’ of Ms. McKennitt’s argument
    Fair-minded people can appreciate the intent of Bob’s posting wherein he says: “Lorena (sic) might have gone a bit hippy-dippy here but she makes a good point.”

    Some, here, loftily assert that ‘rights arise in nature’. In this instance, ‘user rights’ clearly arise in commerce – a much less lofty and far more sordid domain.

    ‘Latter day Robin Hoods’ — they steal from “the Rich” to give to themselves, imagining themselves “the disenfranchised, ergo, the poor” — are much less than self-absorbed, self-appointed victims. They are myopic, too: for the natural consequence of free content and its free transference, when fully applied, is: content that is without value to anyone.

    The canary of that impending disaster, Ms. McKennitt suggests, is the popcorn vendor, whose “death” is already in progress and which, she also asserts, clearly profits no one long-term. Those who are not myopic see that the canary’s well-being also matters, so that more is at stake than some self-defeating ‘schadenfreude’ as the next company goes down.