News

Cdn Music Industry Assoc Chair: Format Shifting, User Generated Content Keep Piracy Sites Going

J.P. Ellson, the Chair of the Canadian Council of Music Industry Association and board member of the industry’s Balanced Copyright for Canada site, makes some rather surprising claims in a post urging Canadians to join the BCFC cause.  After the usual industry talking points on C-32, Ellson implausibly argues:

Among Bill C-32’s objectives is to put the pirate download and file-sharing sites out of business. But the provisions of the Bill that permit user-generated content and transferring digital files to other formats would in fact, keep the pirate flag flying and their sites in business.

Ellson’s comments are consistent with adage that when you are a hammer, everything looks like a nail. In this case, when piracy is your only frame of reference for copyright reform, everything looks like piracy.  Ellson makes an incredible leap in claiming that consumers that format shift are somehow engaged in piracy or supporting sites that promote piracy.  Format shifting involves nothing more than allowing consumers who have already purchased products to shift the content from one format to another – ie. move songs from a CD to an iPod.  The new provision includes numerous limitations – the original cannot be an infringing copy or it must be legally obtained, the individual cannot give away the copy, and it must be used for private purposes (unfortunately, the provision is also subject to the presence of digital locks). Even the BCFC recognized the reasonableness of format shifting as an early form letter designed for consumers stated “If Bill C-32 passes, it will give me the peace of mind of knowing that when I take music I’ve purchased and downloaded online, and copy it to my player, it’s legal.” Given these restrictions and background, how can the lead representative of Canadian Council of Music Industry Association now argue that this promotes piracy?

Similarly, the user generated content provision allows Canadians to make non-commercial new works that incorporate other copyrighted works.  This provision – dubbed by many as the YouTube provision for supporting popular online mashups – has nothing to do with piracy. It is remarkable to find the chair of a leading industry association now claiming that these provisions support websites that promote piracy.  In fact, Canadian Heritage Minister James Moore had a better description for these kinds of claims – radically extreme.

71 Comments

  1. Un-Trusted Computing says:

    User Generated Content
    “…But the provisions of the Bill that permit user-generated content…”

    I’m not exactly sure what Ellson is implying by user generated content.

    Is he implying that we shouldn’t be able to distribute our own content over Youtube and file sharing sites?

    Or is he against remixing and fan-fiction?

    Either position is untenable for a variety of reasons… if I’m understanding Ellson corectly then the industry is truly out of touch with its client base.

  2. Ahaaaahahahahahahaa… zomg
    I almost crapped myself laughing at this! Wow wow WOW!

    I won’t even get into what’s wrong with this most retarded of statements… in fact I can’t, I’ll be too busy on the floor laughing!

  3. Maybe this is the reason
    OK so they’re sticking to their guns and desperately try to push “circumventing DRM is illegal even when the purpose of doing it is otherwise legal”.

    Could they have known about this for some time:

    http://www.osnews.com/story/23806/HDCP_Master_Key_May_Have_Leaked

    and now they are scrambling to control the situation (by making illegal the sale/possesion of devices using this)?

    Nap.

  4. Haha!
    Just think of all those people who would have shelled out seven-hundred-or-more dollars to buy Star Trek: The Next Generation DVDs had they not watched those hilarious 5-minute TNG mash-ups on YouTube.

    Oh wait, that logic is completely stupid…

    Hey media conglomerates: the world isn’t black and white!

  5. Bill MacEachern says:

    The old adage…
    Every time I read one of these executive types trying to push an absurd, unpopular and counter-intuitive viewpoint, I think of the old adage that goes “It is very difficult to make a man understand something when his salary depends on him not understanding it.”

  6. Pretty Sure Ellson Is An Authority
    Funny you didn’t take any notice of the rest of JP Ellson’s article about the deplorable state of the industry in which artists are relegated to incomes below the poverty line, in large part because the results of their work are illegally taken from them without compensation.

    Claims that the industry is thriving must surely be false. Here is a guy who is in touch with 8000 creators across the country. I dare say he has a much better idea about the health of the industry than someone observing from the sidelines.

  7. Pirates Begone
    Go ahead and pick away … the fact is that without a clear signal to pirate sites that they’re not welcome in Canada, and to Canadians that music has value and creators should be able to choose how it is shared, innovative and legal file-sharing options will not choose to locate in Canada, and more artists will find it impossible to make a living making music. In the end, consumer choice suffers.

  8. Reality check.
    @ed & @Walter. Many artists are doing just fine, and I’m not referring to just the ‘big’ names.

    It’s the content industry that is suffering as their preferred physical distribution system has been left behind by advancing technology. They are the ones with the most too loose and are crying the loudest.

    Those artists who choose to embrace the new paradigm are often appreciated by their fans and quite successful, to the horror of the agencies.

    And here’s a heads up, in today’s economy there are quite a few folks who are operating below the poverty line but they don’t have a phantom group to blame it on.

    Sure copyright infringement (aka ‘piracy’) leads to some losses but nowhere to the degree that is often suggested. The other main culprits are a shift in buying habits, increased diversification of the entertainment market, changes in media and technology, and the severe loss of customer goodwill by the insane litigious antics of the labels.

    Another bit of real world advice .. stop focusing on the ‘pirates’ they will always be there. Instead focus on restoring goodwill with actual customers and provide the products and services they desire.

  9. “Facts”
    @ Walter G – that’s not a fact, it’s an assertion. Most of the actual evidence seems to indicate that we have fewer “innovative and legal file-sharing options” than the USA just because we’re a smaller market than they are, and I haven’t seen any evidence that artists find it any harder to make living in Canada than in the USA. It’s far from clear-cut, though, because it’s very difficult to actually take into account all the differences between countries with different IP regimes.

  10. Un-Trusted Computing says:

    Legal services wrangling is responsible for piracy not the other way around…
    Entrenched media companies and licensing issues, and the business of targeted advertising are why these services are not available in Canada.

    eg: Even if Hulu/Spotify/Pandora didn’t geoblock Canada for advertising revenue reasons because their targeted ads are aimed at American Consumers, that in turn pays for the cost of “broadcasting” online… they would still run afoul of the Canadian broadcasters that have exclusive rights to this programming.

    If you must blame anyone, blame the Canadian Content business and not pirates.

    Neither of them (Cancon or pirates) are really to blame for anything but saying these services aren’t available because of piracy is disingenuous at best and well plain ol’ astroturfing at worst.

    Countries with much higher rates of copyright infringement have access to these services, because the business climate, and state of the internet in those countries allows for these services to thrive.

  11. Devin Henderson says:

    Well said Mr. Geist.

  12. Where’s Your Professionalism???
    Mr. Geist your comments annoy me. You’re an esteemed Canadian educator who supports copyright infringement. I’m appalled that you did NOT include the last line of J.P. Ellson’s comment, which is, ‘That is why BCfC is working hard for an improved Bill – NOT to defeat Bill C-32.’ Bill C-32 is a step in the right direction to modernize Canada’s draconian copyright laws. I find your arguments dull and boring. What I’d really like to see from you Sir…is your take on how Bill C-32 could be improved. Stop acting like a twit, you’re smarter than that or so I’m lead to believe.

  13. Steve Creator_Consumer says:

    Many artists are doing fine…not!!!
    @Crockett – If by fine you mean the majority of artists who are forced to work a day-job because they cannot make a living solely from their creative efforts since those efforts are being stolen from them, then yeah – doing just fine.

    Let’s get back to the bigger picture which is what J.P. is trying to focus us on – we need to update our Copyright Act to bring it into the 21st Century.

  14. @ mgeist
    You cannot deny that the Youtube exception is currently extremely broadly drafted. If you had actually provided the context of Mr Ellson’s quote, it would say that he and the rest of BCFC are committed to coming up with a workable, balanced provision. Your attempts to portray anyone who would raise issue with the current drafting as “radically extreme” is NOT conducive at all to any kind of debate about the right kind of balance to strike.

  15. It’s not all about the US
    @Chris Brand Who said anything about the US only? Look at Britain, France, Sweden … all places where copyright laws have been brought up to speed with the digital environment … all places where innovative start-ups are appearing … all smaller markets than the US.

  16. @FileThis & @Julius K – agreed! You can’t just eliminate context of comments to make someone’s words fit your agenda.

  17. Umm … yeah, right.
    @Filethis “Mr. Geist … You’re an esteemed Canadian educator who supports copyright infringement.”

    Please state your evidence for this. Either you have proof of something I am not aware of or you have fully bought into your companies ‘line’.

    @Steve Creator_Consumer “artists who are forced to work a day-job because they cannot make a living solely from their creative efforts since those efforts are being stolen from them”

    First of all Steve do you realize how ridiculous that sounds? How many other working stiffs are forced to have one or even two jobs never mind a ‘day-job’ irregardless of not being able to fully peddle their ‘creative sides’.

    Secondly, people have been sharing media since it was invented, nothing new there. Artists need to change with the times and use different methods to connect with their fans rather than relying on an out of date self-seeking contractor to handle your affairs … they have been so effective at that recently 0_o

    Yes there are artists out there who have adapted and are doing just fine. Just takes some effort and creative thinking. Your fans are your friends and your customers, if you treat them as your enemies and your personal audience then don’t be surprised with what you get.

  18. Quoted out of context? I think so.
    Try again. Mr Ellson is not saying that format shifting works is piracy. His point is that certain exceptions in Bill C-32 are so broadly worded that they would incidentally permit a wide range of pirate activities beyond their intended purpose. That message is obvious from the context of his article of which you only quote two lines. Only you Mr Geist would interpret those comments as an attack on consumers.

  19. Interesting that Michael Geist, who took offense at the term “radical extremist” when he thought it was used to refer to him http://www.p2pnet.net/story/41150 (the video he posted as “evidence” doesn’t ever mention the phrase) uses the phrase himself. Pretty hypocritical. And surprising mudslinging from a Canada Research Chair.

  20. Michael Geist says:

    @JustinR et al
    Sorry, but nothing was taken out of context. Mr. Ellson specifically states the provisions in C-32 that permit format shifting and user generated content would “keep the pirate flag flying and their sites in business.” When he speaks of reforming elements of C-32, these provisions are presumably two of his targets on the basis that he thinks they promote piracy. This line of argument is completely unsupportable based on any reasonable interpretation of the bill.

    As for proposing reforms to C-32, read this blog. I am not against the bill and from the moment of its introduction I have described it as flawed but fixable. That doesn’t sound very different from Mr. Ellson. Where we differ is on what should be changed. I’ve written pages on how the digital lock provisions could be amended to provide legal protections for businesses that want to use them while maintaining the copyright balance. Mr. Ellson seems to want the format shifting and user generated content amended.

    MG

  21. Looks like you’ve just been astroturfed.
    I wonder how many of these people work for the same company?

    Also, I think that you give Ellson too much credit by suggesting that he sees piracy everywhere. It would seem a more likely hypothesis that, as the spearhead of an industry movement to force consumers to pay, pay again, and then pay some more for products that they already own, Ellson is attaching the boogyman of “piracy” to try to entrench a legal requirement to purchase a cable subscription, DVD copy, iPod copy, Blu-ray copy and tv in my basement copy of the same piece of media.

  22. Steve Creator_Consumer says:

    True fans don’t steal
    @Crockett – “How many other working stiffs are forced to have one or even two jobs never mind a ‘day-job’ irregardless of not being able to fully peddle their ‘creative sides’.” Here’s the thing, to a creator (like myself) I’m not just “peddling” my work – nor do I want it to be a mere “hobby”.

    I invest serious amounts of time and energy and have witnessed my work being made available time and time again without my consent. There are a lot of people forced to work more than one job (I get it), but they don’t have to worry about someone stealing that pay cheque from them.

    You say “Artists need to change with the times and use different methods to connect with their fans” -that is already happening. The issue is the creator needs to be paid so he/she can put food on their table and pay their rent.

    Bottom line: True fans don’t steal – pirates steal.

  23. Consumers want user generated content, the market demands it. It’s industries responsibility to put a business model around that. Maybe if that actually happened, creators would get paid for it, instead it’s quite obvious in this post Industry is actually turning down a substantial amount of future profit for creators.

    It’s not the responsibility of Government to interfere with the market when the market demands are quite clearly not being met, and actually fought against by industry. These recent remarks from J.P. Ellson is an example of how a market need isn’t being met, and potential income is being shoved aside by these groups who are championing “creator rights”. That’s sad.

  24. On exceptions
    Mr. Geist, no one is denying the utility of these exceptions, but there is no doubt that their current drafting is extremely broad and could indeed serve to shelter certain pirate activities. Your kneejerk attacks on anyone who dares to voice concern with them is irresponsible and somewhat childish….

  25. There are several things wrong here:

    (1) It is possible to disagree with someone’s argument without trying to demean them personally. This is what professors did in the 70s, especially around political and social studies. If Professor Geist disagrees with what Ellson is saying, then rebut his claims, don’t attack him.

    (2) There are BIG problems with the user-generated content exception. There are no limits on how much can be copied, the person doing the copying doesn’t have to own the original, and as drafted it does seem to allow some commercial distribution by share sites. So it isn’t as harmless as suggested.

    (3) Many issues here also – the exception enables one person to make copies for others, without limit.

    So while Mr. Ellson’s statement may diverge from where Dr. Geist wants to go, he is flagging legitimate concerns and not making radically extreme claims. If Dr. Geist interprets C-32 differently, he can explain why.

  26. We aren’t all dinosaurs
    @Crockett “It’s the content industry that is suffering as their preferred physical distribution system has been left behind by advancing technology”

    What is your evidence that physical distribution is preferred? If the almighty dollar is in fact the only motivator, as I’ve seen stated clearly by those willing to pass judgement on an entire industry (despite not having any firsthand knowledge of the subject at all), doesn’t it stand to reason that a purely digital model would be the logical preference?

    A digital model, free from the manufacturing and shipping costs — free from the logistical challenges of anticipating demand, ensuring sufficient coverage at retail, all the while minimizing the risk of overproduction and the need to destroy unwanted copies.

    Digital product is a Godsend to our industry and this is recognized and the only thing holding it up is consumer acceptance.

    With the ability to encode and transmit our product electronically though comes a significant risk. The risk that the populous will conclude that, since there was no hard cost associated with making that digital copy, the copy is of little to no value and can therefore justify taking it without payment.

    Well, that’s precisely what happened. And while a mountain of opportunities exist in this new age, it’s a shame that we’re still held up on the fact that a creator has the right to demand payment for something they made.

  27. There’s no need for a “Youtube exception”: Youtube works just fine with mashups that are legally licensed. This provision would allow commercial businesses to exploit other people’s work without paying for it (as long as the poster was “non-commercial”).

  28. K.A. Lawrence says:

    @Max Law
    Could you give some specific examples of how the current wording of the proposed format shifting provision could serve to shelter certain pirate activities?

  29. @K.A. Lawrence
    yup, see my post above

  30. Reality Check II
    @Jeff T

    Be honest, it was the CD-ROM that was the godsend to the content industry. It encapsulated the Album format and all but did away with the singles (45’s I used to buy as a kid). People liked the new format for it’s convenience and they even re-bought music they already had on vinyl. The content industry had full control on the distribution and marketing of media. It was a boon time and it was good.

    Fast forward to today. The single is king, along with it’s lower profit margins. There is no need to re-buy already owned digital media because it doesn’t come in a more convenient format. And most significantly the content industry has lost a large portion of their distribution control (even the legal kind). Artists are now free to self market and distribute. The argument that they need big content for promotion is tenuous. In essence, digital distribution is great for artists, not so good for distributors.

    On the issue of value I have a few things to ask. If digital distribution is such a cost and efficiency saver then why is that not reflected in the cost of the product? Often books, movies or music is at or near the same price as the physical product. Not passing any of those ‘great savings’ onto the consumer may be part of the reason people put little value on it.

    And finally, trying to retain distribution control by not allowing format shifting or backup (sans digital locks) then suing your customers for small scale infractions put’s the final nail in the coffin in most consumer’s eyes.

    Yes, copyright infringement is a problem, but it’s always been there and is not going away neither through technological or litigious means. Creating value for the consumer in today’s digital age is going to be a challenge but that is going to be the only road to success. Beating the drum of broken business models or trying to form the digital reality into ‘old wine skins’ is a endeavor bound to fail.

    There is going to be pain for some as the new reality takes shape, and for that understanding and sympathy should be acknowledged. But be comforted in the fact that your industry is not the first, only or last to experience change. When was the last time you bought a horse and carriage?

  31. Michael Geist says:

    @Bob et al
    Mr. Ellson was certainly free to disagree with the format shifting and user generated content exceptions. He could have argued that format shifting should be compensated by way of a levy or that USG can be licenced. I would disagree with those arguments (and would note that the BCFC appears to disagree with the format shift claim), but would recognize that these are issues for debate arising out of the bill. But that is not what Mr. Ellson chose to do. Instead, he argued that these provisions “keep the pirate flag flying and their sites in business.” That is much different claim and one that is frankly unsupportable. There is simply no connection between a consumer format shifting provision that contains several restrictions and websites that promote piracy. The effort to link the two is irresponsible and it undermines the credibility of those arguing for genuine reforms to address real piracy concerns.

    MG

  32. @Geist
    But there is a clear link. If you read my point #2 it illustrates exactly what is likely to happen.

  33. read the article
    I read it. It’s fairly short. I can’t seem to find any contextual problems with Michael’s quote. There isn’t a lot of “context” there in the first place. Just a call to support CCMIA and BCFC in their drive to adjust C-32. The only specific beyond generic passion, is the quote that Michael supplied.

    So, what is all the noise about quoting out of context? It nicely encapsulates the only specific information in the article. The rest is simply fluff and passion.

  34. Michael Geist says:

    @Bob
    The USG exception is explicitly about non-commercial use. I do not see how a “pirate site” would qualify. Further, where is the link to pirate sites for format shifting, an activity that has been lawful in the United States for thirty years?

    MG

  35. Here you go ..
    Dear Eddie,

    @ “radical extremist … the video he posted as “evidence” doesn’t ever mention the phrase”

    For your viewing pleasure an unedited video taken from a private camera at the conference. Notice the releases from the established media outlets did not initially include the comment in question.

    Also notice that Mr. Moore denied twice afterwards ever having made such a comment. I doubt Mr. Geist will be doing that.

  36. @Geist
    An intermediary is allowed to disseminate. While authorization to disseminate must be for non-commercial purposes, that goes to the person giving authorization and it doesn’t prevent subsequent commercial activity by the disseminator. This is what Ellson was talking about and as there’s really no way to control the dissemination, he is saying there is a problem with this drafting.

  37. Really Steve I am on your side.
    Dear Steve,

    @”Bottom line: True fans don’t steal – pirates steal.”

    I agree completely. I may have unintentionally over spoke in inferring that you do not work hard at your craft, it’s just that there are many of us out there who have to work multiple jobs to get by as well. If you are producing content that people value and they wish to consume they should pay you for it, absolutely. Those who take content and give nothing in return are greedy and self defeating as it impoverishes the very one who makes the content they value, possibly negating further enjoyment for themselves [for the record I purchase the media I consume].

    @”You say Artists need to change with the times and use different methods to connect with their fans” -that is already happening.”

    This is good, it is what I have been arguing for. The Internet and digital distribution is both a bane and an incredible opportunity for artists. But it is going to require a LOT of change on the part of both the creators and consumers. The problem I have is not with artists, I really enjoy being entertained and appreciate the craft that goes into it. I have a problem with the content INDUSTRY who has been so inept at both moving into the new models and the incredible harm they have done to the goodwill between the artists and the consumers.

    True there are self-serving people out there who will infringe copyrights till the cows come home, but the value or return you would ever have gotten out of such people is dubious at best. The real people you should be angry at are your industry representatives who, through their own self-serving interests, have tried to maintain their control to the damage of the very people they claim to represent. The **AA’s out there rank among the most reviled organizations in the history of commerce, just ask anyone outside the industry you’ll get an ear full. They have poisoned the well to such a degree that even otherwise honest fans feel little remorse and taking rather than giving.

    I am very pro-creator and I blog in hope that more artists will shake off the shackles and indoctrination of big IP. It’s a brave new world out there .. go out and grab your piece.

  38. @Bob
    Based on your argument (and I haven’t checked into the specifics of the C-32 wording yet), the issue would seem to be preventing “subsequent commercial activity”, not controlling dissemination of such content in the first place.

    In relation to file sharing sites, I’m trying to divine the direction you are arguing. From what I see it implies that “whistling a tune while you work” would entitle a tune’s rights owner, to a portion of the worker’s salary. Obviously I must not be seeing it correctly, can you enlighten me? Where do you draw the line on “commercial activity”? Just how close to the infringement of a specific copyright does “activity” need to be, for rights to be infringed?


  39. “Just how close to the infringement of a specific copyright does “activity” need to be, for rights to be infringed?

    If it were up to media conglomerates, probably down to the level of thought.

  40. @oldguy
    You do need to read it, although it’s almost impossible to figure out what it means. But as I read it, just about anything can be “mashed” into USG regardless of length. That’s problem 1. Then it can be “disseminated” by someone other than the person who compiled the USG. And once that “someone other” has the content, they can do what they want with it in the sense that the originator/compiler is not responsible as long as he/she only authorized non-commercial use. Which is to say that the USG concept is fine, but how Bill C-32 puts it into effect is not.

  41. @Bob
    Bob meant UGC, not USG…

  42. Threading water
    We’re threading water here. “The industry”, backed by the current cabinet, is sticking to their guns and not willing to discuss in any constructive way.

    So the only thing that would make a difference in the end is the vote on C-32.

    I’m looking forward to see if the Liberals or NDP seize the opportunity to make this a major electoral campaign issue. Since all Canadian consumers are fed up with the current position of the “industry”, the copyright laws may be an important enough issue to be bring a major advantage at election time to the party that gets it right.

    Vote wise.

    Nap.

  43. @Bob
    I gathered UGC is what you meant, not what you posted. No worries. Context.

    Although I agree that C-32 isn’t terribly clear in this regard, I don’t agree with your interpretation or your perception of the “problems”. I especially don’t agree that the “solution” is to limit distribution of user generated content (mashups).

    If you look into what goes into creating a mashup, it is almost impossible to put a meaningful “length” restriction in place for reuse of another’s content. It is very subjective and the resulting content has to be looked at individually for cases of infringement. Similar to the amount of quoting when writing a newspaper article vs the amount of quoting when writing a complete analysis of another work. It’s not the amount of reuse, it’s the result. Is it a “new” work or not?

    Mashups, when done right, are simply a new form of content with their own distribution licenses.

    I think I recognize what you are trying to accomplish, but the approach is too broad. These kinds of cases are too individual to address in an overall bill like C-32. Each case needs to be addressed individually.

    And how you can make the leap to such UGC contributing to “pirate” site propagation is simply too far for me to accept. You have built too many assumptions together to make any kind of solid case. Your “solution” would kill the whole concept of UGC, simply based on the maybe possibility that such could be hosted on the same systems as works hosting infringing copyright.

  44. Fun & Politics
    @Napalm “the copyright laws may be an important enough issue to be bring a major advantage at election time to the party that gets it right.”

    I think this could be an interesting wedge issue. Neither the consumer or it seems even the content industry are happy with this bill, so it can be played either way.

    Seeing the CPC trying to come out on the side of artists will be a laugh and it’s easy to show how this bill is a wolf in sheep’s clothing for the consumer.

  45. @Crockett
    @Crockett “I think this could be an interesting wedge issue. Neither the consumer or it seems even the content industry are happy with this bill, so it can be played either way. ”

    Sure. As a run-of-the-mill politician one would evaluate potential campaign contributions from “the industry” vs. votes and act accordingly. As a statesman one would carefully listen to all parties then do the right thing. We’ll see soon who is who.

    Nap.

  46. Ellson makes an incredible leap in claiming that consumers that format shift are somehow engaged in piracy or supporting sites that promote piracy” Where did you read this in Mr Ellson’s comments? He simply said the exception could be used to shelter pirate activities – he never attacked consumers as you are attempting to portray.

  47. @James
    He said “user-generated content and transferring digital files to other formats would in fact, keep the pirate flag flying”

    I’m sorry, but I’m not catching how this shelters pirate activity. You’ll have to explain this statement a little better, because I certainly see this as an attack on consumers.

  48. and huge cell bills are ok tho?????
    why is it ok to have a $500 per month cell phone bill, but the minute someone says you have to pay 20 bucks for the content you enjoyed on that phone people lose their minds? is it possible that cell providers and isp’s are taking more than their fair share of the pie?

  49. It is actually the other way round
    It is actually exactly the other way round, i.e. it is DRM media that helps you get in contact with illegal download sites and tools. Most people want to transfer their legally acquired content to their devices of choice like iPods or computers and whatnot. With non-DRM media like most audio CDs this is straightforward and all the tools you need it are coming with your PC OS. So you just do it and that`s it. With DRM media (like most movies) the first attempt to do so fails because of DRM and the user will immediately use Google to learn why. And guess what you get when you do searches like `copy movie`. Some time later you eventually find out that instead of downloading lots of `programs` that promise to help you to do that, to the effect of hosing your computer with spyware, viruses, or just an instable program that crashes every now and then, you could as well download the movie from some torrent site.

    Nap.

  50. Jeff consumer_creator says:

    It’s interesting the stretch people make. I’ve been in this game for 24 years. Quite a bit before the ability to move media became so easy. The artist working 2 jobs is no more prevalent now then it was then. Actually I would say that the ability of new artists to grow and make money is stronger now than it was then.
    The only difference between then and now is that artists working 2 jobs have can point to something and say “That’s why I’m working 2 jobs”
    But in reality it’s not artists that making these claims. It’s businesses behind them.
    Many recent studies have shown that revenue is shifting from businesses to artists. This will continue regardless of copyright law.
    you can read one of these studies here with links to many more
    “Yet Another Study Shows Musicians Making More Money”
    http://bit.ly/8Zv0ER

  51. Jeff consumer_creator says:

    You might also want to try reading an article by Janis Ian (I told you I’ve been at this a while) http://www.janisian.com/reading/internet.php
    She also mentions the writer Mercedes Lackey and her experience.

    Just to be clear, I support copyright and believe that it’s needed for me to control how my own work is used, but over the years through personal relationships, I’ve come to realize the centre of my success is not me It’s those that support me. (I know that’s not really a centre, but I’m not a writer)

  52. Simple test
    As for “format shifting, there is a simple test to see whether something should be prohibited or not:

    is it imoral, unethical, antisocial, or does it endanger health or life?

    I challenge Mr. Ellson to explain how exactly listening to a legally bought CD through an iPod instead of a CD player would fall in one of the above categories.

    Nap.

  53. It’s no all OK
    @Jimmy – “and huge cell bills are ok tho????? why is it ok to have a $500 per month cell phone bill, but the minute someone says you have to pay 20 bucks for the content you enjoyed on that phone people lose their minds?”

    It is NOT OK that we pay such high mobile communication costs (much higher than other countries), just as it is NOT OK that content I should be charged twice to watch content that I own. The government has taken steps to increase competition to lower the costs of wireless. Why is the content industry trying to INCREASE the costs of my media usage?

  54. This is stupid.

  55. Once again Mr Geist picks and chooses the sections of articles he wants to feed his followers. The thrust of JP Ellsons article is that the bill needs to be fixed if anything it invites debate not mudslinging.

    Whoever you are Naplam I’d love to see your evidence that “Since all Canadian consumers are fed up with the current position of the “industry”, the copyright laws may be an important enough issue to be bring a major advantage at election time to the party that gets it right.” –that’s a pretty sweeping statement. And while we are on the subject of sweeping statements just because many here and elsewhere keep asserting that most artists are doing just fine don’t make it true.

  56. Re @mgeist’s tweet
    In response to Mr. Geist’s tweet “Warm welcome 2 all Warner & Sony Music employees anonymously commenting on my blog in support of CRIA from their work IP address”…..

    I’m not commenting anonymously. I didn’t realize we had to identify our occupation when we comment on your blog. I am a proud music industry employee who has the privilege of working with many talented musicians, artists, photographers, software developers, designers who make the Canadian music landscape so unique.

  57. Just a few suggestions to help you on your way.
    @Steve “just because many here and elsewhere keep asserting that most artists are doing just fine don’t make it true.”

    A couple of things, there are many people other than artists who are struggling in todays economy. Singling your profession out for the government to “fix” is a little self indulgent.

    Secondly, the world has changed as it often does. Specifically the way media is distributed and consumed. Hoping the old models will serve you and pouting when it does not, is not going to help you in the long run. Innovate, find what your customers want and deliver it to them, stop giving a big portion of your pay cheque to the labels.

    Just a few suggestions to help you on your way. And seriously I wish you all the success.

  58. Steve Morris says:

    Identification
    @Sylvana

    The issue is not that you did or did not identify yourself rather it could be the correlation of comments from a single IP range. The “industry” is welcome to an opinion, it would just be nice if the “industry” would listen for once too.

  59. My name is right there and yes I proudly work in the music business and have done so for many years. I have commented on your blog in the past and read it on a regular basis …I havne’t noticed many other folks psoting their workplaces, titles etc …I hae noticed an awful lot of names poster with the colourful names like The Pirate, Napalm, oldguy, and more who simply like to call themselves Anonymous.

  60. So Prof Geist chooses to “out” a specific group that dares to question his attack on the opinion of a man who represents thousands of musicians across the country …how about identifying all the anonymous posters that agree with you? Typical intimidation tactics along with being completely dismissive of other opinions other than your own. I guess this is no place for real dialogue.

    And to Crockett … you make the assumption that people who don’t agree with you believe this to be a music industry only issue? you are incredibly arrogant… this issue touches vast numbers of Canadians in fields ranging from entertainment, to science, traditional manufacturing etc. Your narrow view is bewildering.

    What I’ve learned from reading this and other free culture blogs is that their will never be a satisfactory commercial solution for you and your crowd… Digital Music services none are good enough, Digital copies put in with Blu Rays not good enough, sampling opportunities not good enough, Fair Use provisions not wide enough, relaxation of DRMs not relaxed enough.

    We all appreciate your condescending offer to help us along but we’ve heard them all before.

    I

  61. Typical…
    This is typical of you, Mr Geist. Instead of substantively responding to what critics say, you attack them for who they are. Not what they say, but who they are. Also note you are unspecific, you don’t say exactly who the employees are…you therefore leave the impression that all comments critical of you are coming from the labels. That is extremely disingenuous.”

  62. Un-Trusted Computing says:

    Respect
    HB1 said: “We all appreciate your condescending offer to help us along but we’ve heard them all before.”

    As a fellow creator I’ve heard all the label/studio nonsense too. The reality is that sharing my content for free actually makes more money for me than working with a distributor every has.

    So you can count me as an artist in favor of free culture.

  63. Lol
    @Steve: “Whoever you are Naplam I’d love to see your evidence that “Since all Canadian consumers are fed up with the current position of the “industry”, the copyright laws may be an important enough issue to be bring a major advantage at election time to the party that gets it right.” –that’s a pretty sweeping statement.”

    Steve, which part of this statement you don’t agree with? The press is full of articles about RIAA’s lawsuit wars with everybody from 12 years old girls to dead grannies. The Canadian public is literate and can read them, thank you. Also the same Canadian public had to deal for years with “the industry’s” DRM antics, like in sitting in line at Futureshop to be one of the firsts to get Avatar the movie on glorious BluRay, then rush home and sit the whole family in front of the TV, just to notice that it doesn’t play. It needs a “firmware update” that’s not available yet, thank you. This is what “the industry” is currently up to and it’s very unsavory, I can assure you. Bad enough to influence a vote.

    Nap.

  64. Dear HB1;
    @HB1 – “And to Crockett … you make the assumption that people who don’t agree with you believe this to be a music industry only issue?”

    I actually don’t think it is a ‘music industry’ only issue. Not sure how you got that impression. Actually the music industry is one of the first to offer some DRM free media, kudos for that. Movie & book publishers still have a bit to learn. But I have appreciated the Blu-ray/DVD sets you mentioned and have purchased quite a few. Now if I could only put them on my home media server …

    @HB1 – “We all appreciate your condescending offer to help us along but we’ve heard them all before.”

    Glad to hear that, but it’s not me you should necessarily be listening to, it’s all your current and potential customers you are alienating.

    @HB1 – “you are incredibly arrogant”

    On the topic of arrogance, I don’t think I hold the copyright on that 😉

    For instance there was a company .. Sony something I believe … who, without consent, installed root kit software on consumer’s computers when they attempted to legally play a music CD. This same [unauthorized] root kit created an exploitable security hole that compromised many systems … I don’t think I can top that, at least I hope not!

  65. Sony/
    The same Sony that sold me a Playstation 3 that was advertised as being able to run Linux after which they removed this functionality during subsequent mandatory firmware updates?

    I wish to you that your car manufacturer recalls your cars for some minor issue and seizes the opportunity to remove your back seats too. Just because they can.

    And they talk about arrogance….

    Nap.

  66. Napalm – the part I disagree with is your statement “ALL Canadian consumers are fed up with the current…”

    Yes the RIAA sued people and screwed up…but going back to the same dead grannies and 12 year old sound bite….yawn.

  67. And in the end…
    People like me continue to be punished by ridiculous laws, and thus pushed towards “piracy”(I’m starting to see copyright as inhibitory to the general growth of society).
    And current pirates go “arrr” and download yet another TV show.


  68. @Steve: Napalm – the part I disagree with is your statement “ALL Canadian consumers are fed up with the current…”

    OK, prove me wrong, show me 1 consumer that was thrilled by DRM and sent a “great idea, thank you, I’m eternally grateful” letter to CRIA.

    Nap.


  69. @Steve: “Yes the RIAA sued people and screwed up…but going back to the same dead grannies and 12 year old sound bite….yawn. ”

    Here a fresh one:

    http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/09/intel-threatens-consumers/

    Nap.


  70. … and the most interesting part of the article is this quote: “Someone has used mathematics and computers to be able to work back to what the master key is,”

    So if something can be derived through mathematics, how can it be the “IP” of a single entity and patentable?

    How exactly can someone patent a matrix of random numbers and then pretend that no one else could ever use those numbers again?

    How about we rush right now to the patent office to register our favorite numbers?

    Of course this doesn’t matter in a lawsuit where him with most money and lawyers win (by bankrupting the opponent).

    Nap.

  71. Steve Creator_Consumer said: Bottom line: True fans don’t steal – pirates steal.

    Bottom line if your music is only pirated that means you fans see no value in it because think it stinks and is over priced and they’re rather spend the money on something else. So this should tell you that maybe the last album project idea wasn’t so good and its time to create something the fans will want.

    I find it interesting how some of you think artists should be automagically entitled to make money of their creations. Well maybe you could have made money if you didn’t sign over the copy rights to the record company which now rakes in most of it while you get the left over chump change.