Text: Small Text  Normal Text  Large Text  Larger Text
  • Blog
  • CRIA President: C-32's Statutory Damages Reform a Licence to Steal

Blog Archive

PrevPrevApril 2014NextNext
SMTWTFS
  12345
6789101112
13141516171819
20212223242526
27282930

CRIA President: C-32's Statutory Damages Reform a Licence to Steal

PDF  | Print |  E-mail
Thursday September 16, 2010

CRIA President Graham Henderson had some noteworthy comments on copyright reform in an article just published by Grammy.com.  While unsurprisingly supportive of Bill C-32, Henderson expressed specific concern about changes to the statutory damages provision.  After the government faced criticism for its $500 cap on downloading damages in Bill C-61, it shifted its approach by rightly distinguishing between commercial and non-commercial infringement. The bill now proposes to establish a maximum statutory damages penalty of $5,000 for infringement that the court considers to be non-commercial.  That contrasts with commercial infringement, which carries a $20,000 per infringement maximum.  Note that the minimums are roughly the same - non-commercial infringement has a $100 minimum, while commercial infringement's minimum is $200.  The existence of maximum and minimum damages places Canada in the minority of countries as most do not have any statutory damages provisions, relying instead on actual damages.

While $5,000 is still very significant potential liability for non-commercial infringement, it apparently is viewed as licence to steal by CRIA.  Henderson tells Grammy.com:

"Once this bill is passed, you could go online and steal every movie that's ever made, every book, and every song, put them on your hard drive, admit liability, and write a $5,000 check. That would be the full extent of it — and it would be the first rights holder who would get all the money. Nobody else would get a cent. It's close to saying that for people who want to steal stuff, there's a compulsory license of $5,000."

Is there anyone - other than CRIA - that seriously believes this is likely to become a common outcome?  The more plausible explanation for the concern is that notwithstanding repeated assurances that it has no plans to resume suing individuals, CRIA would like that approach to remain a viable possibility and it fears that a $5,000 cap on liability would be too small to justify the litigation.

Comments (141)add comment

Coopted said:

...
How many people could afford:
- the storage space necessary to do this
- the bandwidth costs necessary to do this
- the wasted time/effort necessary to do this
- to pay $5000 each time you are noticed doing it

I think it's pretty sensible. Anyone who is downloading that much probably will never consume enough of what they download to justify wasting that much time and money - unless the purpose is not to consume the media but rather to distribute them (ie, commercial).
September 16, 2010

Napalm said:

And the alternative is?
@CRIA "you could go online and steal every movie that's ever made, every book, and every song, put them on your hard drive, admit liability,"

Dear CRIA,

I'm eager to visit your web site where I could legally download for a reasonable price "every movie that's ever made, every book, and every song" and play them through the device of my choice.

Could you please kindly send me the URL of the site?

Nap.
September 16, 2010

Anon-K said:

Its all in the interpretation
The text is "Subject to this section, a copyright owner may elect, at any time before final judgment is rendered, to recover, instead of damages and profits referred to in subsection 35(1), an award of statutory damages for which any one infringer is liable individually, or for which any two or more infringers are liable jointly and severally"

I interpret this such that EACH copyright owner is entitled to up to the max. Mr Henderson seems to have a different interpretation.
September 16, 2010

Shawn said:

Why bother?
The solution is simple: boycott the record companies. There is plenty of free music available on the web, or the same or better quality. I haven't bought music in years and I don't listen to radio. I'm perfectly happy with what I find on the web.
September 16, 2010

... said:

@Anon-K
Ah but the big businesses went and shot themselves in the foot didn't they? They own ALL the copyrights in there so instead of giving 5k $ lawsuit income to each of their artists (who should own the copyrights separately), they are stuck taking 5k $ total all to themselves !
September 16, 2010

Crockett said:

This week just keeps getting stranger.
I am actually fairly surprised at the rising opposition from the content industry to Bill C-32, now it seems that no one likes it ... if that's the CPC's way to 'make it fair' for everyone then good job! 0_o

Now to the topic of the thread ... LOL! Are they serious? Who would actually do that? The time, bandwidth for 'every book,song,movie' I'd have to quit my job to manage all that and then wouldn't be able to pay for the over-bandwidth charges .. never mind the $5000 fine. Methinks the CRIA dost flatters themselves too much, people have more important things to do with their time.

As suggested, the real reason for their displeasure could be with a capped ceiling for damages it would less economically feasible to sue infringers. Now this is probably true but is also I would think the intention of the clause.

Now before the CRIA and the like get all frothy at saying how unfair that is let me give them a bit of advice .. this is clause is more for your benefit than the infringers. In their 'righteous' anger to stamp out all infringement the **AA's of the world have done many more degrees of harm to themselves than good. The bad blood they have generated leads people towards more infringement rather than less (some have begun to realize this, others for some reason it's taking a little bit longer to sink in). By putting in reasonable caps on non-commercial activities, this clause will actually be saving them from themselves.

Commercial infringement, by all means, sue their pants off.
September 16, 2010

cyber security nut said:

Its a risk to CRIA and stakeholders, but a limited one at best
To answer your question, I would say that it is indeed a risk to CRIA and stakeholders, but a limited one at best.

Is Henderson onto something? I would ask: how much does the average Canadian currently spend on these materials per year? I would doubt that it is even close to 5000. More like 1000 -if that. To those ends, maybe its time to change the business model
September 16, 2010

Walter G said:

...
Please. Let's take a step back from the cat-calls and focus on what really matters. We need copyright reform to better protect Canadian creators from digital piracy. Why does action against piracy matter? It takes bread from the mouths of creators, harms Canadian businesses and destroys jobs.
September 16, 2010

Ed Wilson said:

Ole Indeed
There are other comments in the article that Mr. Geist chooses to ignore, perhaps because they're not from his favourite target - the music labels. What does an indie music publisher have to say? Here is a gem from Michael McCarty, president of indie music publisher ole, : "the bill virtually provides nothing — no new way of getting paid for creators" and "seems to go further towards protecting the businesses that enable and profit from piracy."
September 16, 2010

Crockett said:

Walter, I agree.
@Walter "We need copyright reform to better protect Canadian creators from digital piracy."

No argument there ... really I'm serious. If you want to use media you should first purchase it. We also need copyright reform to protect the rights of consumers. Why? Because it keeps the content industry from multi-charging us for that same media (taking bread form OUR mouths).

It goes both ways, which I think is often lost as you say among the cat-calls. If we can understand that concept then we CAN sit down and discuss on 'what really matters'.
September 16, 2010

Michael Geist said:

@ED Wilson
I actually tweeted about McCarty's remarks yesterday and have a post coming that accounts for them too.

MG
September 16, 2010

Yvan Boily said:

Law doesn't create a new marketplace :P
My favorite line in the article is the quote from Eddie Schwartz "The problem continues to be that creators need a new business model going forward, and the bill doesn't address that desperate need at this point".

This shows such a fundamentally broken view of economics that I don't even know where to start. The implication from Eddie is that the Government has a responsibility to create a new business model since their existing one is not sustainable except through draconian legislation to protect the incumbent business models and players.

It has been shown repeatedly that protectionist policies for failing businesses cause more damage in the long run than allowing those businesses to fail or adapt to changing circumstances :/
September 16, 2010

Crockett said:

You can dress up a wolf in a chicken suit .. but's he's still a wolf.
@Ed "What does an indie music publisher have to say?"

Mr. McCarty's pedigree speaks for itself. To say he is a spokesperson for the whole indie music movement is quite a stretch ...

"McCarty is a member of the Board of Directors of SOCAN, the Canadian Music Publishers Association (CMPA), the Canadian Musical Reproduction Rights Agency (CMRRA), and was a founding director of the Canadian Songwriters Hall of Fame."

He goes on to say he is against net neutrality and thinks ISP's are piracy enablers who 'makes tons of money' off the backs of artists 0_o

I sincerely do not believe that people would cancel their internet connections if they could not pirate music, to think so suggests a self-important mindset that is a little out of touch with reality. So if being able to 'pirate' or not, does not change the number of service subscribers [or loss of income] then how exactly does that equate to making money off artists?

For a more rounded overview of the independent artists movement check the Wikipedia entry: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independent_music
September 16, 2010

Darcy said:

Git On With It
Unfortunately, the $5,000 liability cap noted by Mr. Henderson is not the only shortcoming of Bill C-32.

Lots of other amendments are needed so that the government's stated intentions to stop piracy are reflected in a new law.

We need the government to get on with this job and pass effective reforms.
September 16, 2010

marmotte said:

...
"...
Please. Let's take a step back from the cat-calls and focus on what really matters. We need copyright reform to better protect Canadian creators from digital piracy. Why does action against piracy matter? It takes bread from the mouths of creators, harms Canadian businesses and destroys jobs."

What a load of BS. Prove it. At the very worst, it takes an unverifiable (IMHO not that big) sum out of the CRIA. The true enemy of the artists? Why look no further then CRIA itself! http://www.thestar.com/busines...fringement

Before trying to bankrupt Canadian citizens under the guise of saving music creators and artists, maybe the CRIAA should clean up it's own act or stop playing the offended virgin altogether.
September 16, 2010

Martin said:

I have over 6 TB of downloaded TV shows and movies
I was a early adopter of the BitTorrent protocol. I have an extensive DVD collection (over 300 DVD of movies and perhaps 40 TV series box sets).

I pay my cable subscription every month, but I rarely watch TV. Instead, I download all of my TV shows directly via Torrent and watch them on my computer. Less problems. No tapes to manage, no DVDs to burn. No ads to skip. Just direct HD content without needing an HD receiver.

But here is the kicker. I even download torrents of content I legally own on DVD. Simply because it's more convenient to have it on my computer than going in my library to locate the proper DVD and watch it.

I often even buy boxsets of TV-shows and don't even bother to remove the wrapping because I already have all of the episodes on my computer. But I don't buy all of them. Only those few shows I want to treasure forever.

A 5000$ cap could actually save me. If I were to pay 50$ PER video file I downloaded, I would be forever bankrupted.

And yet, I go to the theater all of the time. I was one of the rare to saw Kick-Ass on the theater on the opening week-end. I downloaded the DVD rip torrent on the day is was available, and I will probably buy it on DVD.

Should I really pay a fortune in damages for the DVD download since my wife and I will have paid 20$ to originally see it at the theater and another 20$ to legally own it on DVD ?

September 16, 2010

crade said:

...
"you could go online and steal every movie that's ever made, every book, and every song, put them on your hard drive, admit liability, and write a $5,000 check"
Alright!, if I was planning on buying 250 albums / dvds at an extortionary 20$ a pop, until I get sued again!
September 16, 2010

crade said:

...
err, supposed to be "I could break even until I get sued again" :) the error must be technologies fault.
September 16, 2010

Crockett said:

It's very uncomplicated
"We need the government to get on with this job and pass effective reforms."

Why is it the governments job to legislate your preferred [and broken] business model? Did politicians pass laws banning automobiles from the roads to save the liveries? (wait .. I'd better check, that's something they might just have tried!)

Give consumers a viable product with fair value and most will buy it.

Simple.
September 16, 2010

marmotte said:

...
Maybe M. Henderson think 5000$ is chump change, but to most Canadian it is a sizable amount. Not enough to bankrupt me, but maybe enough to force me to sell my house right now.
I have nothing but contempt for the RIAA and their Canadian lackeys. Boycott them or, if you really can't, buy used. You'll still be a dirty thief in their eyes though.
September 16, 2010

Bonnaventure said:

That's a lot
If even 1/2 of Canadians did just this, it would mean 80 billion dollars for the rights holders (I think...)
September 16, 2010

Steve said:

...
Watler G is the only one here not posturing or justifying infringment. We need copyright reform to protect creators,and those who invest in their careers. What that reform should look like is the debate and wasting the opportunity by engaging in anti-corporate sloganeering is tiresome.
September 16, 2010

Sylvana said:

In complete agreement with Mr. Henderson
It is UNSURPRISING that many of the commentators before me who contest Mr. Henderson's position ALSO admit that they do not legitimately buy content (e.g. Martin, Shawn). The remarks from such commentators underlines the importance of passing copyright legislation - the sooner the better. While the bill indeed has flaws, we need to push the government to make this a priority so that we have a digital marketplace that compensates content owners and those 1000's of Canadians who work in this sector. Canadians seem to forget that it's not just the record co's, artists, film studios who stand to gain from the passing of legislation - we ALL gain from this since it will encourage those abroad to invest, and open up shop Canada. Let's not forget, Canada is a trading nation.

September 16, 2010

Michelle said:

Honestly
Never mind the semantics - the fact is, it makes perfect sense to say that if EACH illegal download is a case of infringement, there is no logic whatsoever behind a blanket cap of $5000 that covers ALL cases of infringement by the same user. It's completely illogical and Graham Henderson is rightfully taking issue with it.
September 16, 2010

Lorenzo said:

...
Most posters here are missing the point. The issue here is simply effective enforcement. By restricting damages, the 5k penalty falls short of this goal: neither high enough to prove a true disincentive (and protection of legitimate rights) and too low to make independent litigation an option.

Henderson has it right.
September 16, 2010

Jon Lester said:

...
Crockett - "Did politicians pass laws banning automobiles from the roads to save the liveries? (wait .. I'd better check, that's something they might just have tried!)"

Great idea. Lets just leave all Canadaian laws the way they are in 2010 reardless of how technology evolves.

September 16, 2010

Chris A said:

...
I dunno, if I had to pay $5000 out of my pocket I would certainly be hurting at the moment. And I have a well paying job. I think that $5000 is a fine amount that won't break the back of the people who are not making money off what your bringing them to court for,
September 16, 2010

Victoria said:

...
I whole heartedly agree with Mr. Henderson's concerns and Sylvana's comments. Canada needs copyright laws that support creators and foster innovation - leading to jobs and exciting choices for consumers. Infringers need strong deterrents and unfortunately, limiting liability like this just doesn't cut it. Mr. Geist seems so interested in attacking the music industry that he isn't taking into account the big picture and all of the benefts robust copyright laws can bring to Canada's creators and consumers.
September 16, 2010

CBM said:

...
I sometimes visit this site to laugh at how out of touch MGs postings can be. Today does not disappoint.

Mr. Henderson's comments are very interesting and do help to illustrate the need to have copyright reform that protects the entire creative industry (creators, investors, services and consumers).
September 16, 2010

aaaastroturfing! said:

Hilarious!
Look at how all these posters crawling out of the woodwork out of nowhere. Clearly a coordinated attack. I think it's funny how half of you never commented on an MG article before now - Who's paying you? Seriously?
September 16, 2010

Anthony said:

...
"Is there anyone - other than CRIA - that seriously believes this is likely to become a common outcome?" YES, there is. Henderson makes a very valid point. From my reading, the $5,000 cap could, practically speaking, amount to a license to steal. Given the immense potential damage that can be caused to legitimate marketplaces by "non-commerical" infringers, the cap is totally insufficient.
September 16, 2010

Joe said:

...
@aaaastroturfing!

Almost makes you wish the comments had a timestamp with the date, eh?
September 16, 2010

Chris A said:

...
Definitely curious what people think that "non-commerical" infringement is. From the looks of it, all the "people" posting here seem to think it means any form of infringement.
September 16, 2010

jenn edgar said:

...
Agree completely with Graham. The law isn't intended as an "alternative business model for pirates", which is essentially what it could turn into. What cable company offers EVERY movie, EVERY book and EVERY song for $42/month? To Crockett's comment, we'd LOVE to offer viable products with fair value but when sites like Grooveshark continue to flourish, what incentive is there for other legitimate services to launch?

September 16, 2010

Crockett said:

No we are not all "thieves"
@"Watler G is the only one here not posturing or justifying infringement."

Really? Who except for maybe Martin has been justifying infringement? Please don't use that tired old paintbrush on all of us. I've said again and again that if you want to use content then buy it (I do). Please read back on my posts to confirm that. The other side of the coin that soooooo... often gets forgotten by the content industry is they have to have offer a product that people see value in, in the first place. If they did so they would see sales and profits rise.

Again, simple.

September 16, 2010

Asstroturfer said:

Big Content gets with it deserves.
@Victoria, Anthony, CBM and other assorted members of Canada's sadly lacking music industry:

The business end of your industry, claims to represent the artists, but really only represent themselves. In that sense they're no better than big oil or big tobacco.

Do you really think you'll ever see a penny of this judgement? Do you think it will even put a dent is piracy?

These laws will only hurt law abiding citizens, whom in turn will feel the need to get away from big content. One can hope they'll make of a move towards truly free and not pirate free, but either way is fine by me.

Pirates and pirate providers will do what they always did which is find a way to stay undetected.

Further down the rabbit hole we go.
September 16, 2010

Kennth Kendal said:

human from the earth
I think Henderson's comment is taken out of whack here. He is making a point not suggesting that anyone would do that - although @martin seems close. The music, film, book businesses are businesses just like running an airline or making computers. I paid $3000 for my computer and $1000 for my ipad and $400 for my phone and all three of these will be out of date in a few months and I have to buy new ones. I can buy The Boss' album "Darkness at the Edge of Town" for less than $10. and it will last for the rest of my life and my children's lives (if I keep buying hard drives to keep it on before they fail).
In my life music is important and worth more to me far beyond the value I am charged for it. Why do we keep presenting arguments that suggest otherwise. Who cares how much a private citizen is charged for infringing copyright. The bottom line is they should not be infringing copyright no more than they should steal something from a store.
@martin are you some sort of crazy guy. You went to see a movie at a theatre so you think you own it? That argument is a bit new to me. I am pretty sure the idea in this bill would suggest that if you had the dvd and a copy of the film on your hard drive you would pay no infringement fee as you would not be infringing copyright!!! You own a copy of the film and can prove it and you have a copy of that film on your hard drive. You state that you download commercially available product because it is easier for you. iTunes is very east as is NetFlix and whoever else is just around the corner - just go buy the stuff you have keep it in it's plastic wrap because you like it that way and stop worrying no one is after you. They are after the propagators of the torrents you downloaded. If you don't watch cable cancel it and don't expect your cable provider to make everything ok with every filmaker, crew, band, warehouse shipping person, distribution company in the world and everyone else who has worked a lifetime in one industry and is now losing their job because you can't get off your couch. (i suspect you do watch tv though because how would you have a favorite show that you could buy on DVD or steal if you didn't) and I am sorry that you saw Kick Ass and spent money on that sort of thing but that does not give you the right to take other people's hard work and not allow them the right to make money doing that work. if the work is bad don't buy it. If it is great please buy it.
September 16, 2010

Eddie said:

...
Graham Henderson is absolutely right, but if anything his comments erred on the side of moderation. Bill C-32's non-commercial infringement liability cap amounts to a licence to steal.
September 16, 2010

Quentin said:

...
Henderson's concern is valid... a blanket cap for all infringement is illogical. Martin's comment illustrates this perfectly as he proudly proclaims to have 6TBs worth of pirated movies and TV shows. Not sure why Geist insinuates that this is only a music industry concern.
September 16, 2010

Crockett said:

1,2,3,4,5 if the music industry just tried then they could thrive.
@Victoria "Mr. Geist seems so interested in attacking the music industry that he isn't taking into account the big picture and all of the benefts robust copyright laws can bring to Canada's creators and consumers."

1) Mr. Geist is not so much attacking the music industry as protecting the consumer. It's a matter of perspective.

2) I have yet to see a robust copyright law that would benefit consumers, but I look forward to it.

3) Taking into account the big picture is exactly what the the **AA's of the world neglected to do when they started attacking their customers. Now there is much less respect for the industry and greater infringement because of it .. good job. I have no fair in such organizations to have input on crafting 'robust' legislation.

4) If you think the average consumer is going to purposely infringe to the tune of $5000 and then just 'cut a cheque' then you really:
a) seriously overestimate the disposable income and desire your customer base has for your products.
b) don't have much of a clue who your customers are and what they want.
c) need to get out more.

5) I would love to see creators and consumers have a more amiable and productive relationship. But realize the ball is YOUR court. You are trying to market a product the consumer would wish to purchase, there is nothing forcing consumers to buy something they see as undesirable [DRM blocked media]. Maybe such high levels of infringement could possibly be a clue to you that you are failing in this regard?

September 16, 2010

Pirate said:

...
You industry crooks make me laugh if you think any law is going to put the toothpaste back into the tube.
Plenty of other places other then the highly monitored P2P networks to find our free fixes.

We'll all just go back underground (even trading our hard drives if we have to) and theres not a thing you can do to stop it either.
If people want to get things for free and not have to pay the extortionate ripoff prices to get it, they'll always have a way.

So whats a stupid law going to do to stop us? Exactly what it did here in the United States, absolutely jack shit. Over 35% of global P2P traffic still comes from the US. I don't even use P2P networks anymore and still download almost 1TB of crap a month. 2TB hard drives are less than $100 bucks now. My 48TB RAID array never looked so beautiful. The computer industry is really loving us folks!

-Confessed pirate.
September 16, 2010

CBM said:

...
Assssssstroturfer - You’re missing the point. It's not about collecting money. C-32 is about developing Canada - Developing our digital economy, developing new home grown digital services, respecting the creator. Finally, it's about the consumer and giving them the options and services which other digital economies are already enjoy. Please, please look long term and understand that c-32, once passed, is just the first step to further developing Canada's digital economy.
September 16, 2010

oldguy said:

No we are not all "thieves"
And take a close look at Martin's stated behavior. Although technically he is infringing copyright, he is also an avid buyer of content.

If you actually talk to people, you will find that the majority of the "pirates" are much like Martin. Regular purchasers of content as well as "pirates". They don't tend to post or advocate for copyright change much, they just continue what they are doing.
The vocal side tends to be the ones that are not "pirates". They are concerned about the direction the laws are trending, and the conflict with the direction society (like Martin), are heading. They are more and more often advising people move to CC licensed or "free" content with direct contributions back to the individual artist.

So I have a question to ask all the artists and distributors that complain so bitterly about the "pirates":
Would you prefer that the public/audience/society behave like Martin? Or would you prefer to have a growing segment that are so fed up they have resolved to only obtain legally free content, or content that bypasses the distribution channels and goes directly to the artist?

September 16, 2010

Junji Hiroma said:

I welcome All Music Industry ppl that come to this site.
I heard that NOFX already predicted your downfall due to your prehistoric business models:
"Gonna fight against the mass appeal
We're gonna kill the 7 record deal
Make records that have more than one good song
The dinosaurs will slowly die
And I do believe no one will cry
I'm just fking glad I'm gonna be
There to watch the fall

Prehistoric music industry
Three feet in la brea tar
Extinction never felt so good"

When the Music Industry dies,the customers won't cry cause they knew where the Music Industry placed their bets on(Their Old Business Models).

Adapt Or Go Extinct is what i always say
September 16, 2010

Chris A said:

@CBM
If it's not about collecting money, why does it matter how much money the infringement portion has then? The ability to bankrupt consumers isn't going to stop people from pirating. There's more than enough evidence of that already.
September 16, 2010

Crockett said:

hmm, I seem to be a chatterbox today ..
@CBM - It is even more hilarious how out of touch the content industry is with the consumer. I suspect it would be good to step outside of the same thinking corporate world you move in and get to know real people, your customers, who just want value for their money. People who infringe, well you won't find any common ground there, nor should you. Real customers .. hopefully.

@Jon Lester - Leave the laws the same? Of course not, otherwise we'd still have slaves and women couldn't vote. But to try to legislate a business model, that is not the role of government [hence, my analogy]. Consumers do not like DRM or being told they cannot back up, shift, put on media home servers the content they purchase. They do not like being forced to watch endless ads and previews before getting to the movie they just bought. Is it any wonder they are not buying your products to the tune that you desire? You are a business, who's role is to serve their customers, the customer is not there to serve you. When you remember that I think you will be able to get your profits rolling in again.

@Lorenzo - Either the media business is really good to you (if so why are you complaining?) or you are independently wealthy if you think having to shell out $5000 is not a big disincentive for the average person. Furthermore, to consider the insane amounts that are being contemplated in the USA, is not only grossly disproportionate but life wrecking cruel.
September 16, 2010

Jeff Power said:

Lack of creator input
I'd be happy to raise the cap, if everyone knows they could get hit by a $50,000 fine perhaps pirating would diminish.
However I would never agree to that unless they added wording that said you could break any digital lock for fair-use legal purposes
But there's no negotiating with big content , they want their cake and they want you to pay for it 2-3 times
September 16, 2010

Walter G said:

The real issue
Canada needs balanced and effective copyright reforms to restore the right of artists and other creators to be compensated for their work. Period.
September 16, 2010

Chris A said:

@Walter G
"Canada needs balanced and effective copyright reforms to restore the right of artists and other creators to be compensated for their work. Period."

Which no one where actually disagrees with (for the most part). We also just want it to be balanced between the creator and the consumer.
September 16, 2010

David B said:

...
The suggestion that the labels plan to sue downloaders is a fabrication - a figment of Mr. Geist's imagination. Mr. Geist has descended once again into disingenuous commentary, presumably to rouse his anti-reform troops. Please do not put words into other people's mouths.
September 16, 2010

Chris A said:

@Jeff Power
"I'd be happy to raise the cap, if everyone knows they could get hit by a $50,000 fine perhaps pirating would diminish."

Seeing as no caps hasn't seemed really done this elsewhere that has no caps, I'm going to think that no it won't.
September 16, 2010

Rick J said:

As far as music goes...
...there's no need for the cheque. Just burn copies to CDs and you're in the clear. The record companies pushed for the CD levy so I'm happy to take advantage of it. The library system in town has *lots* of CDs...
September 16, 2010

Napalm said:

Translation
@Walter G: "Canada needs balanced and effective copyright reforms to restore the right of artists and other creators to be compensated for their work. Period."

Translation: CRIA needs a business model where they can continue to act as middlemen abusing both the artists and consumers. Since they are obsolete they want a law to protect the status quo.
September 16, 2010

Un-Trusted Computing said:

@Walter G
"Canada needs balanced and effective copyright reforms to restore the right of artists and other creators to be compensated for their work. Period."

Artists and Creators have all sorts of new (and old ways) of getting paid for their work. These efforts are being spearheaded by publishers and rights holders being made irrelevant.

Artists will keep making art and getting paid for it, but signing up with a major label/big studio may no longer be the way to do it.

Seriously, big content's extinction could be the best thing that happened to the Arts in a long time.
September 16, 2010

Jeff consumer_creator said:

As a creator...
Copyright is terribly important, however there is a clear dismissal of consumer (the people that actually pay us to do what we love) concerns from the Industries.
In my opinion the Industries have purposely tried to put creators and consumers at odds because they know that in the modern age of communication they are becoming more irrelevant.
Keeping consumers and creators at a distance is valuable to them.
Speaking out loudly against any copyright actually plays into the CRIA hands as they turn around and say to the creators "See what they think of your work"
Copyright should respect both creators and consumers, it is a critical symbiotic relationship.


September 16, 2010

Chris A said:

@David B
Then why does it matter that the non-commercial infringement has a cap?
September 16, 2010

Jason K said:

...
Isn't this an attack on virtually every artist tied in with the CRIA:

"...and it would be the first rights holder who would get all the money. Nobody else would get a cent."

Wow..the first rights holders according to most contracts is the label. Maybe artists should look at who they have representing them. That's nuts. Mr. Henderson should have been fired a long time ago. This is going to create a lot of problems within the industry I can foresee, and also put the credibility of the CRIA on the line which are supposed to be protecting "Artist" rights not labels!
September 16, 2010

Un-Trusted Computing said:

@David B
"The suggestion that the labels plan to sue downloaders is a fabrication - a figment of Mr. Geist's imagination."

So all of the lawsuits we've seen in the US are just a figment our imaginations as well?
September 16, 2010

crade said:

...
I don't mind if the laws are hard on piracy at all, that just isn't what they are doing. Instead they are trying to get a bunch of new access restriction rights that have nothing to do with copying at all put in, as well take away more of the fair dealing rights that do have to do with copying. So they want to make more completely legitimate activities illegal, but still not do anything about it if someone does them. They also seem to want to lessen the burden of proof so they can sue people without having to show they did anything wrong.

You can tout "crack down on piracy" all you want, but I still don't see how anyone who has looked into what they are doing can get behind it.
September 16, 2010

Napalm said:

No they won't
@David B: "The suggestion that the labels plan to sue downloaders is a fabrication - a figment of Mr. Geist's imagination."

They never would, would they?

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,96797,00.html

they're suing the dead too:

http://www.betanews.com/article/RIAA-Sues-Deceased-Grandmother/1107532260

Just check the track record of CRIA's mothership:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recording_Industry_Association_of_America

Nap.
September 16, 2010

Anon said:

...
When did the CRIA start hiring shills to post comments here?

I swear, you can only either be completely braindead, or a hired astroturfer for CRIA if you agree with this stance.

$5000 is no small change. That's my entertainment budget for at least a year or two. I support higher penalties for commercial infringement, like selling bootleg DVD's for example, selling counterfeit software, etc, making a profit off it.. But for personal home use, an average teenager downloading a song doesn't deserve a $5000 penalty, when the most the song would have cost is $0.99, and the most the label would see of that is $0.50, and the most the artist would see of that is a fraction of a penny. The teenager could have as easily recorded the song off the radio instead, committing the exact same amount of copyright infringement, but since it's not digital, it would be completely overlooked and no sane judge would even consider prosecuting it.

This guy is complaining his agency can't sue for millions, claiming this will hurt artists, but when you look at past lawsuits, of the hundreds of millions they've already won in court, NOT A SINGLE CENT HAS GONE TO ARTISTS. He claims this will send the wrong message, that it's just a slap on the wrist and it's okay to steal, suggesting harsher penalties would act as a deterrent.. I'd like to point out in the US, people still face millions in charges for piracy, yet piracy has continued to rise, no matter how bad the penalties have become.

We don't need to change our laws to support a failing business model. The reasons the artists aren't being compensated for their work is the fact the record industry takes 99% of the share of the profits. It has nothing to do with piracy, it's a broken business model, and some very rich and influential people would like to keep making money hand over fist at the expense of both the artists and the consumers.
September 16, 2010

Crockett said:

More doublespeak and nonsense
@CBM - "Finally, it's about the consumer and giving them the options and services which other digital economies are already enjoy."

Hate to burst your bubble, but Canada actually has more friendly IP laws than the USA according to surveys of international business leaders. Pandora was operating here just fine, through it I discovered three new bands I liked and bought their albums. Now, it's gone, why? (PSST, LET ME GIVE YOU A HINT .. IT'S ALL ABOUT LICENCING NEGOTIATIONS .. LOOK IT UP). It's not our laws that are the problem it is the greed and infighting of the content licensing holders, whose 'only concern' of course is that of their clients 0_o.

If you opened your mind to more than the horse fed line your 'reps' feed you, a lot would become apparent to you. If you are a horse feeding rep, then it doesn't matter as your days are numbered.


@David B - "The suggestion that the labels plan to sue downloaders is a fabrication - a figment of Mr. Geist's imagination."

That is so funny, did you hear what you just said? Fine, lets dispense with the cap and any talk of fines altogether as it is a needless & superfluous clause. Problem solved.
September 16, 2010

Crockett said:

...
@Anon - "It has nothing to do with piracy, it's a broken business model, and some very rich and influential people would like to keep making money hand over fist at the expense of both the artists and the consumers."

+1 and Amen.

The sooner artists stop listening the the drabble the IP industry feeds them and think for themselves the exceedingly better off they will be. They may even realize that many of the people posting here are their greatest allies. Artists deserve to be paid and respected, their industry reps are preventing either.
September 16, 2010

Steve said:

...
agree with Geist you are forward thinking on the vanguard of true freedom ...disagree you are shill, a scumbag, a dinonsaur.
September 16, 2010

Chris A said:

@Steve
"agree with Geist you are forward thinking on the vanguard of true freedom ...disagree you are shill, a scumbag, a dinonsaur. "

I can turn that around for you to represent your side of you want.

"Disagree with Giest and you're someone out to protect the creator and make sure that they get compensated. Agree with him and you're a thief and don't want to pay the creator for anything."
September 16, 2010

schaste said:

Who ARE all these new posters???
I have been reading Dr Geist's web site for several years now, and have posted comments once or twice about C-32. However, all of a sudden there seems to be a huge influx of - let's admit it - industry-savvy posters, who are walking the walk, talking the talk, all working toward a common cause etc, of how Dr. Geist is fomenting treachery and promoting piracy or some such nonsense. Where were these people when he first started talking about C-32, or about other issues like ACTA? This seems to be a well organized astro-turf campaign; my oh my, I could never guess what association(s) would do such a thing... and now that Parliament is coming back into session, there might even be REASONED DEBATE about this issue. Can't have that now, can we?

Anyway, I'm only half-way reading through today's thoroughly, astonishingly biased batch of industry-insider postings, and I'm probably repeating what a lot of the calmer, more common-sense regular readers have already said.

Back to my reading... I could get a cup of coffee too, except that some of the more-ridiculous postings might make me spray caffeine all over my screen.
September 16, 2010

schaste said:

re: Who ARE all these new posters???
I would like to see what Sarah Harmer, Bruce Cockburn, Terry Clark and Corb Lund think of this. As opposed to their "representatives".

Just don't ask Loreena McKennitt.
September 16, 2010

Ed Wilson said:

Unsurprised
I just saw the tweet from Mr. Geist "outing" the label folks "anonymously" posting on this thread.

Does it surprise Michael Geist that people whose livelihood is at stake take a direct and passionate interest in these issues? And that they would express such views here?

Further, does it surprise him that given his heavy-handed tactics (such as “outing” them to his “followers” – case in point) they’d prefer to remain anonymous?
September 16, 2010

maebnoom said:

No law will...
...ever stop "piracy". Ever. Good luck with that.

I won't even get into the points about how if someone illegally downloads something doesn't mean they would have purchased it otherwise, or how a great number of so-called "pirates" buy more of said material than most "non-pirates".

""If you actually talk to people, you will find that the majority of the "pirates" are much like Martin. Regular purchasers of content as well as "pirates". They don't tend to post or advocate for copyright change much, they just continue what they are doing. ""

Bingo.

""Look at how all these posters crawling out of the woodwork out of nowhere. Clearly a coordinated attack. I think it's funny how half of you never commented on an MG article before now - Who's paying you? Seriously? ""

Another bingo.

Have fun debating something you won't be able to change either way.

September 16, 2010

HankC said:

...
I look forward to the next time someone steals a carton of cigarettes, they are charged with theft under $5000 for each pack, or even each individual cigarette for that matter.

I and my family were in the retail music biz for over 25 years. About 8 years ago when we realized the biz was changing we got out and moved on. We didn't blame our customers or want to sue them. We just knew the business model was changing.

I enjoy how many of these people are all "Free markets!!!" until they have to deal with the reality of the situation and they go looking to sue teenagers in their basement listening to a none tangible product that doesn't even exist.
September 16, 2010

Napalm said:

These folks are fighting for their jobs
Imagine that copyright would be abolished and copying becomes free game. The artists would still make a living with live performances (like they did for centuries). The "consumers" would attend concerts and happily copy amateur recordings of them (remember the "bootleg" tape cassettes?). And CRIA would be without a job.

So now you know why they fight tooth and nail.

Nap.
September 16, 2010

crade said:

...
"agree with Geist you are forward thinking on the vanguard of true freedom ...disagree you are shill, a scumbag, a dinonsaur. "

you can disagree all you want without being any of those, but you gotta give us something better than "geist is biased", "you are all sheep, you follow geist blindly", "you're on the pirate's side", "we must fight pirates" "you don't listen to anyone who disagrees". What is there to listen to? It isn't really relevent if we are all fat and ugly or not. Whether we agree that we must fight pirates doesn't matter when we are discussing what is to be considered piracy and what isn't, as well as what is and isn't an effective means of fighting it.

My simple observation is that high penalties have not been effective means of curbing piracy, but they have on the other hand made everyone angry to the point that even the labels were forced to curb their lawsuit campaign due to public backlash. How does any of that translate to "This is great, we need some of that up here in Canada"?
September 16, 2010

HB1 said:

...
schaste--so ms mckennitt's views are invalid because the don't conform to your narrow view. nice. how about randy bachman, maia davies, mike turner, neil clark. lilly allen, and countless others who are regularly shouted down by the free culture clan if they dare to speak up with an opinion not approved by The Pirate Party?
September 16, 2010

Crockett said:

Do some research, check back posts.
@HB1 - I am not aware of anyone here as member of the pirate party. Apart from a few posters today, whom I have not seen here before, most regular bloggers support artists being paid for their work and do not support copyright infringement (fair use rights, yes, but that is another conversation). Most are even advocates for both consumer AND creator rights. I buy all the media I consume, and yes sometimes I do take advantage of 'free' media if it is legally being offered as such.

This is not a pirate haven as you may have been told to believe. I suspect even a few 'pro-pirate' posts are fictional as I have not seen them in such numbers as today as opposed to the past few years I have been blogging here. Don't believe me? Take a look back in the archives and see.
September 16, 2010

Un-Trusted Computing said:

@HB1 re: McKennitt
For the record this is what Loreena said:

"From activists and academics we hear a lot about so-called "user rights." It is my view that this is crafted language."

So Loreena wrote an Op-Ed where she claimed she knew better than her fans. Naturally this drew some disagreement. The great thing about the internet is that everything that goes on the internet stays on the internet forever.
September 16, 2010

Crockett said:

No pitchforks here
@Ed "Further, does it surprise him that given his heavy-handed tactics (such as “outing” them to his “followers” – case in point) they’d prefer to remain anonymous?"

oh yes Ed, all us evil consumers are going to come over to your house and hoist a jolly roger on your lawn 0_o

Yet, all I believe Mr. Geist did was give you a warm welcome, as do I. Maybe if you spend some time here you will see how reasonable we actually are and concerned with both artists and consumers getting their fair [NOT free] share.
September 16, 2010

Degen said:

...
Wow, I thought I'd seen it all from Dr. Geist, but that latest tweet is just to the moon.

Employees of Sony and Warner don't count in the copyright debate, apparently. If you work for a living in culture in Canada, you have fewer privacy privileges than anonymous posters named Captain Hook, Confessed Pirate, Napalm and Un-Trusted Computing.

Tribalism in the academy? Impressive.

On my blog, I've been patiently talking for years with one copyhate drone after another, and at the same time being one of two or three voices of professional-creator reason over here. For my sins I've been called every name in the book - todays nastiness towards artists doesn't even come close.

One afternoon of a significant volume of comments NOT supporting his every thought and we get this passive-aggressive "I know who you are" crap on twitter."

Oh, captain...
September 16, 2010

Degen said:

...
Yep, comment held by administrator. Circle the wagons.
September 16, 2010

Napalm said:

...
@Degen: "Employees of Sony and Warner don't count in the copyright debate, apparently. If you work for a living in culture in Canada, you have fewer privacy privileges than anonymous posters named Captain Hook, Confessed Pirate, Napalm and Un-Trusted Computing. "

Better tell us about your lobbying to get C-32 written in accordance to your views. How much did it cost?

Nap.
September 16, 2010

Degen said:

...
Napalm,

What name are you calling me, exactly? Lobbyist?

Alright, who is paying me to lobby? Reveal my secrets to the world.
September 16, 2010

Michael Geist said:

@Degen
About ten comments were posted in the span of 15 minutes. That is enough to capture my attention as it is either a spam attack, a high volume source like Slashdot or Reddit, or a coordinated effort to post. When I checked to see the source - something I would do with that volume regardless of the perspective of the posters - it became clear who was behind them. I didn't delete anything or name anyone. Everyone is free to continue to post unmoderated as always.

MG

PS - One of the largest sources of spam on this site is World of Warcraft or WOW spam. I filter for that word, which was in your post.
September 16, 2010

Napalm said:

...
@Degen: Let me rephrase:

Did CRIA (or a member of it) lobby one or more members of the cabinet for including certain provisions in C-32?

If yes, how much did this lobbying effort cost?

Nap.

September 16, 2010

Degen said:

...
Seriously, Michael, you need a new hobby. You monitor comments to your site in real time?

Wow.
September 16, 2010

Degen said:

...
Napalm,

I don't know. Did CIPPIC or someone who founded it lobby one or more members of the cabinet to include certain provisions in C-32?

If yes, how much did this lobbying effort cost?

Wow.
September 16, 2010

schaste said:

COPYRIGHT???
@Degen, @H1N1 - er, @HB1 (sorry, I just couldn't resist):

I have never used BitTorrent or any other means to download music or movies from questionable sources in my life. I buy music CDs (as long as they are labelled as CDDR and are not "copy-controlled") and sometimes listen to music on hober.com, for example. I use Linux and OpenBSD at home, both of which have taught me to RESPECT copyright, not to flout it. I've also downloaded a Creative-Commons indie movie (Sita Sings the Blues) and liked it so much, I JUST MIGHT BUY THE DVD!

And yes, I lost all respect for Ms Mckinnett when I read the same op-ed referenced above by @Un-Trusted Computing.

Copying my own music CD or even a DVD to my hard drive is not stealing; nor is providing direct support to artists - I have bought several Canadian artists' CDs (Sarah Harmer, Great Big Sea, George Belliveau etc) directly from their web sites instead of a store. My hope is that more of my money goes to them.

By the way, my nick-name I have used is a mish-mash of my first and last names. What does HB1 stand for? Or are Sony/Warner employees only allowed to post here if their actual identities can never be inferred or even guessed?
September 16, 2010

Michael Geist said:

@Degen
No, John. You may recall the site was hit by serious hacking problems about a year ago, resulting in it being down for long stretches. The webmasters implemented some systems to monitor usage and uptime. Certain activity triggers a notification to me and the webmaster.

MG
September 16, 2010

Crockett said:

Degen I have to call you out on these.
@"Dr. Geist, but that latest tweet is just to the moon".

Where on earth (or the moon?) did Mr. Geist say these posts were not welcome? Is it unusual though for a group of employees in one office to mass blog all at once, don't you think? Can't handle a little tongue in cheek? I think you bruise too easily.

@"todays nastiness towards artists doesn't even come close."

Please show me this nastiness towards artists, I'd be surprised. Most here are pro-artist. Distributor's, well that's a different story and somewhat deserved proved by past and current antics. [Root kits, multi million dollar damages on a few dozen uploaded songs, shady investigation tactics, mail out racketeering ... on and on]. Deny it if you like, it's all on record and the public consciousness.
September 16, 2010

Crockett said:

...
@Degen "Yep, comment held by administrator. Circle the wagons."

My posts get held up about 50% of the time. The longer the post the more likely a keyword will be tripped. it's no big deal or conspiracy. Chill.
September 16, 2010

Napalm said:

...
@Degen: "Did CIPPIC or someone who founded it lobby one or more members of the cabinet to include certain provisions in C-32? "

Bwahahaha. Now that's hilarious. Maybe you could arrange for CRIA to donate some money to CIPPIC so they could afford to engage in lobbying too?

Nap.
September 16, 2010

Degen said:

...
Napalm,

Sorry, was that an answer to my question?

Goose, gander, you know. The whole saga.
September 16, 2010

Degen said:

...
Michael,

Don't you hate those hackers? I mean, what's the point? There oughta be a law.
September 16, 2010

Jason K said:

...
I find it really funny that these industry shills come on here and actually think they are making any difference towards the public perception of their opinions, Degen included. Consumers have already won. There's no credibility nor economic advantage to going after fans for $100 - $5,000 on an issue of actual damages from P2P that have yet to be proven anywhere globally in a court of law. There simply is no conclusive proof industry can come up with to argue actual damages. This has yet to be argued in US case law as well. Bring on the court actions Mr. Henderson! Let's get this solved once and for all, and let Canadians show the world the way forward.

Bring it on!
September 16, 2010

margaretB said:

... the money tree is dead
Only lawyers will continue to water a tree that is dead. That tree was planted in a different time and space. It flourished back under those environmental conditions. The environment has changed (already a decade long). The tree and all its branches, is dead. The landscape is now a lush and healthy lawn. But the lawyers are still throwing water on the stump... Thing is, you can't force fruit off a dead tree. You can litigate all you want but the tree is still dead.
September 16, 2010

Joe Smith said:

Dev
What an incredible jackass. Why not just make it a bazillion dollars and be done with it? I'm sure all these sorts of numbers make sense in Mr. Hendersons world (ie. Dreamland). I find that the copyright provisions that were changed and enhanced to cap the statutory damage at 500 were sufficient. It is NOT A LICENSE TO STEAL. As we all know, stealing retail merchandise provides for harsh punishments already. Copying digital bits across the Internet is not stealing, it's copying. Get it right. Copying does not deprive the original owner of anything. Whereas stealing TANGIBLE items does. There is, and should be, a huge difference between those things.

I say its' about time we stop taking cues from Mr.Pie in the Sky here and get back down to earth where real people live. We already pay a copying levy on our blank media. These people do not provide me with anything for that. We have paid this levy for years and yet, what have I received in return? NOTHING. So I don't want to hear this nonsense. Do you want the Levy or do you want the Statutory Damages provision? You can't have it both ways Mr. Henderson.

But hey, what do I know Mr. Henderson. You're the expert. Clearly you know how you're killing the music industry in your actions and outdated thinking. Surely record sales would be at an all time high if that were not the case. I suggest you folks learn to capitalize on the Internet instead of fight it (ie. something along the lines of iTunes). You cannot win. Put up online stores where people can download the legit media, it'll sell. CD's are going the way of the dodo. Your choice.
September 16, 2010

Dohn Joe said:

License to Steal!
I agree with Mr. Henderson, but more broadly. I don't just think it's the limit on statutory damages that's a "License to Steal(TM)", but the whole of copyright law!
September 17, 2010

Anobe said:

...
Ha...these comments make me laugh every time there's an "argument attack" from one side (the consumers) to another (the industry "experts" who cloaked themselves to make cheapshots at the comment sections).

The fact the matter is...music is long dead when the recording industry sued the people in the United States.

Don't believe me, well here's an example of it:
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2007/10/riaa-jury-finds/

No matter how you saved it or not, you can't revive what's already dead. Music is just another business to them, not art. That's my opinion.
September 17, 2010

Anobe said:

Oh Another Thing....
Enjoy your stay New World Order folks.
September 17, 2010

Anomalous said:

...
Beware of dying dinosaurs, for they will spend the last of their energy fighting to justify their existence. They will fight the inevitable to the very end.
September 17, 2010

John B said:

Crocket said:
"Did politicians pass laws banning automobiles from the roads to save the liveries? (wait .. I'd better check, that's something they might just have tried!)"
In fact, yes they did. Atfirst the call went out to ban these huge,noisy horse scaring beasts. Then they tried to put roadblocks in the developement of the automobile by forcing the use of men carrying a lighted lamp walking in front of the vehicle, even during the day. Well, we all know how that worked out... don't we? :)
September 17, 2010

Martin said:

Me again...
First of all, I do not think there is a coordinated attack. This page made it to the top page of Reddit, a popular news sharing website.

Let me reinstate my point. I purchase for at all 1000$ of DVDs per year. I go to the theater every 2 weeks, if not every week.

I am not just laying idle on my couch, no willing to pay for everything.

The fact remains that prior to torrent, here was my viewing schedule :

1 ) I would tape on VHS almost every TB show I liked and archived them. I taped all of Babylon 5. I taped all of The Dead Zone. I taped all of Star Trek: TNG. I wasn't pirating them. I was taping them while they were broadcasted to my house. Is this a copyright infrigement ? If so, why are VCRs legal ?

2 ) When I wanted to re-watch an episode, I would find the tape in my ridiculously big VHS library and go to it.

Eventually, I bought of the first TV Tuner card (it was external and on USB) and began recording my TV shows on my computer instead of on tape. I thus recorded a LOT of shows, a lot more than I could with just VHS tapes.

Eventually, DVDs of TV series came out. I bought all of Babylon 5. All of The Dead Zone. All of Red Dwarf. Even thought I had VHS tapes of all of these shows. I didn't buy any of Star Trek TNG simply because instead of chargin 30 to 40$ a season, they were charging 120$ and I was no longer a fan of the show ( I had stopped watching it).

When Torrents appeared, I discovered the quality was better, so I stopped recording my shows and started downloading them. I never created a torrent for sharing. I am a taker of Torrent, not a sharer.

I eventually wanted to watch Babylon 5 again. I had watched it when I first saw it on the Televison. I had watched it on my VHS tapes back in 2001 or 2002. I had watched it a third time when it came out on DVD and I legally bought them.

So, I wanted to watch them on my computer and using my DVD drive makes a lot of noise and ripping the DVDs is slower than downloading them, so I downloaded them.

Is that legal ? I don't think so. But should that action make me lose everything should I be accused ? I don't think so either. I didn't kill anyone. I didn't deprive anyone of revenue, since I am already spending way more than most Canadians on entertainment.

When I paid to see Kick-Ass in the theater and when I will pay to buy it on DVD (possibly this week-end), I will have voted for the movie. I will have done EVERYTHING I could have done to send money to the creators.

Should I be punished because I also pirated it ? This is the part I just don't understand. I don't think I own it because I paid to see it in the theater and because I will own it on DVD, but isn't extreme for the movie industry to punish one of their good customers ?

To be honest, I am now spending MORE in entertainment because I am buying DVDs of obscure movies I downloaded and which I would have never paid for without first watching it free. These are often independent movies who deserve a bigger audience.

Does it mean I am fully justified ? No ! I am not saying that !

I am just saying that I am not alone. A lot of people are both heavy [paying] consumers AND "pirates".

The day I get fined for my piracy is the day my entertainment budget disappears.

If I get fined 5000$, since I spend 1000$ in DVDs per year, that means 5 years without a DVD purchase. It's that simple.
September 17, 2010

Chris A said:

@Degan
You sure to like to try and read a lot into what people post.
September 17, 2010

Napalm said:

Hacking
@Degen: "Michael, Don't you hate those hackers? I mean, what's the point? There oughta be a law."

Yes there is a law, look under "computer tampering". Last time I heard of a major case it was about Sony installing rootkits on their paying customers PCs.

Yes there should be laws that protect the consumer from reckless behavior from the part of individuals *and* large corporation. Why should corporations be exempt of any responsability?

Nap.
September 17, 2010

Joel said:

Regular guy
What would be so wrong with a single location where I can go and watch whatever I want... No matter the language, country of origin or time of day/week/year? No offense, but when I want to to watch something, I like to not have to either wait until it shows up on a local station, go find some store that sells it (then make sure it's at a reasonable price by comparing with other stores) Spend the time to go get it, wherever it's at... come home... make sure I have the proper equipment to read it. Make sure that equipment has the latest security features (see avatar on blue ray)

Accessibility to your "Traditional" media is slow, a pain in the butt, bad for the environment (package, transportation costs, production of media).

I want to watch stuff... why cant the industry figure out a way for me to do that easily? I would happily pay for a subscription.....

Here's to hoping netflix will help a bit.... then again... the traffic caps are a whole new problem.

Damm dinos
September 17, 2010

... said:

@Joel
That is precisely how the "free market" has failed us. Big business wants to hang on to its archaic business models instead of coming up with new ones. And is it even that hard? They already have their work cut out for them - no need to do market research, everyone knows what people want!

I swear these higher ups need to lose their jobs, they clearly don't know what they're doing anymore.
September 17, 2010

marmotte said:

...
To the corporate shills:

By rehashing the same old lies promoted by the MAFIAA you are effectively helping erode away any rights you have as customers.

I should have the right to copy any media that I own for personal uses. Digital locks would prevent that for me, the lawful customer, while hardly hindering the pirates.

Score: Pirates 1 - Customers 0

Massive infringements award would only promote the lawsuit mentality we see in the United States. Extortion scheme done by the likes of the USCG will become more common place. The troubling thing is, a lot of innocents will be caught in the net of IP addresses sleuths. The real pirates, those who download bucket loads of media, know how to stay clear of torrent sites and know how to download things anonymously. They wont get caught or be impressed to see some poor shmoe being bankrupted. They will continue unabated.

Score: Pirates 2 - Customers 0

I could go on and on but that would be pointless. What you fail to see is, this whole thing going on with copyright is not about artists and creators rights. It never was. It’s not even about piracy.

It’s about revenue stream and how to increase it, how to monetize every little single occurrence of media play.

It’s about control and limitation on what we can do with the things we buy and eliminating resale rights.

It’s about attaining infinite copyright.

Artists and creators won’t gain a thing by this. CRIA as already proven it can rob its own members. No, the artists lose big time, as they will have heavier chains upon them.

It’s about abolishing fair dealing. It’s about eradicating Public Domain. .

This is the true crime, the true injustice being placed upon society. For without those there will be no creativity possible. It will be stopped at every step.

To the rest of us who are not paid for :

As responsible Canadians there are no other possible actions. Don’t pirate, because it gives them free publicity. Instead, boycott the CRIA and the MAFIAA. Boycott every Organisations or artists that support limiting laws and the eroding of society rights. Plenty of independent artists out there need your patronage. If you have to buy something from the media mafia, buy it used. If they can buy them way into drafting their own laws to protect them, we have a responsibility to not support them.
September 17, 2010

Junji Hiroma said:

to napalm
"The more laws and order are made prominent,The more thieves and robbers there will be.' - Lao Tzu

Read that and what does that tell you.This guy is NOT even remotely lying in this quote.That's the mere truth and reality,The Truth hurts don't it?

"YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH!." - Col. Jessep,A Few Good Men
September 17, 2010

oldguy said:

@Junji Hiroma

And if you extend that to it's logical conclusion, at what point are there only a few (or none) that *aren't* thieves and robbers?

No, he wasn't lying. But you have to think about the ramifications of it as well, on a society wide basis.
Would you really like to live in a society where you have to tread very, very carefully to avoid being classified as a criminal? Where the only innovation comes about from the "criminals", because they are the only ones unafraid of trying something new?

That quote references something bigger, and deeper, than you seem to realize. If you did, I suspect you wouldn't have used it in this context.
September 17, 2010

IamME said:

RE: Martin
I'm in the same situation as Martin and agree with him to a point, except, with an 1100+ DVD/BD collection, I spend more on DVD/BD and go to the movies less since I have little kids. I only download TV shows, primarily because the only places we have in Canada to purchase such content is so much more expenive than the US sites that it's highway robbery. With the a fore mentioned little kids, so much of what I like to watch is not appropriate, so that leaves me with recording or downloading, which I don't consider any different, so I can watch after the kids go to bed. With the $70 a month I'm paying Bell I don't feel bad for downloading shows instead of using my PVR. 6 of one...half a dozen of the other.

Really, can someone tell me what the difference is between recording a show on a PVR/VCR and downloding it? I've heard critics saying it's the region-specific advertizing. Who watches the advertizing on a recorded show? Not me... I just fast forward through it and if it's something I intend to keep, I remove it altogether to save space.

Streaming is not an option, with an eratic connection, otherwise I would just use Hulu (Or something similar)...yes, there are ways to make it work in Canada. Legal? Illegal? Who knows... I consider it REDICULOUS that we don't have a decent service like this. That's just our media companies and government dragging their butts.

I don't download movies, unless it's not available in North America or out of print and unavailable...even then, I try to find an R2 or R4 version of it if I can. Downloading a movie is a last resort.

As for music, ever since they started sueing fans, out of principle, I do not support North American music hardly at all, with only a small number of exceptions. On top of that, with so much music here being "formula" I can only take so much. Really, how many more Nickelback clones can we take? My musical tastes lie primarily in European folk/hard rock/metal music...which I buy on-line.

Everyone in support of C-32 goes on and on about support the artist!! NOTHING in C-32 helps artist (Unless they hold their own copyright)...only the CRIA and the MAFIAA...the true copyright holders!!! Even if C-32 passes, MOST artists with not see a single cent difference in their income. That is the true crime here. I would buy much more music if artists sold it themselves and I knew I was actually supporting the ARTIST and not the media giants...well not as big as they once were. I guess that's why we are where we are with C-32. I guess they didn't learn their lesson with the Napster fiasco.
September 17, 2010

IamME said:

...
RE:"That quote references something bigger, and deeper, than you seem to realize. If you did, I suspect you wouldn't have used it in this context."

I don't know...I like this quote in theis context. It's describes the USA and DMCA to a "T"
September 17, 2010

Napalm said:

Lex Gabinia
I propose to give a name to C-32: "Lex Gabinia".

Nap. :-)
September 17, 2010

Jeremy Soule said:

Free is not a business model
Dear Michael Geist,

My full letter is here...

http://jeremysoule.wordpress.com/2010/09/17/dear-michael-geist/

I'm your newest fan!

Sincerely yours,
Jeremy Soule
September 17, 2010

Napalm said:

Teaching
@Jeremy: As a teacher, Michael's main job is to transfer selected information to his students and help them to understand and use this information. Once he's done with this, the students are free to use this information as they see fit, including teaching others, without paying any further fee to Michael. This is his business model and it works.

Of course, inspired by DRM, we can see how in the future he could add new "revenue streams". Students will be mandated to carry a brain implanted encryption chip that can control all this information. It would be "activated" when needed, and a fee would be automatically charged to the student's Visa card. Also Michael would retain the right to completely shut down the whole brain of the student at any time and for any reason.

Looks good to me.

Nap.
September 18, 2010

IamME said:

@Jeremy Soule
No one is arguing that creators shouldn't be paid, but much of the problem there lies in the contracts between the creator and the production company. Not C-32, not any other copyright law is going to fix that problem. Entertainment distribution has fallen in to a new paradigm, this this now what most consumers, especially younger consumers, now expect and demand. This is why we keep saying the industry must adjust. Trying to force old paradigms when consumers have already evolved in to new ways WILL backfire. There will be no real winner here, but as the saying goes..."The customer is always right." The **IAs would do well to take this to heart.
September 18, 2010

oldguy said:

@Jermey

I read your blog. BTW, here is a tip. If you leave at least one space before the URL, this system will automatically turn it it into a clickable link. Like this:

http://jeremysoule.wordpress.c...ael-geist/



Just because you don't see an "answer" to your dilemma, doesn't mean there isn't one. You have phrased your blog response to Michael to include personal impact terms. So my response to you will follow the same lines.

You shouldn't be so quick to assume that our new digital age won't impact the teaching profession, nor that it isn't happening right now. Michael's role, his "job", will be impacted sooner that you seem to realize. Yet he will continue to have value as long as he engages directly with his "customers" and their changing requirements. Even if that engagement is eventually through a digital, reproducible, medium.

You don't seem to be thinking about the millions of people whose lives have already been impacted by our new digital age. How many people have had to "reinvent themselves" and their roles already? Myself included. You were not the first and you won't be the last. You might even try to explain to me why "what and how you do your job" deserves special treatment, where I and millions of others did not.
You might also take solace in the fact that the ones that haven't been heavily impacted yet, will see their turn soon enough. I have, but I was also aware enough to realize even I wasn't in the first wave.

We are in the early phase of a societal change as big, or bigger, than the invention of the printing press. You need to think about what the term "Future Shock" means in psychological, economic, and societal terms. How it applies to your personal and current situation. How it applies to your industry. How it applies to your audience and customers.

Take your core skills and adapt them. If they can't be adapted, then it's time to develop new ones. Just like many others before you have already done. Just like many others will need to do.

Your customers and audience are still there, really. But their world has changed. You need to change as well, or you won't reach them anymore. You can't change their world back into something that suits you.

If you are looking for someone to hand you an answer on a silver platter, it won't happen. Nobody handed the millions that came before you an answer either. Even the answers we did find are being fast outdated, and we are constantly looking for the next one. Welcome to my world, the world of uncertainty, constant reinvention, and personal life creativity.

September 18, 2010

Jason K said:

@Jermey
Wow, you need to do your research there buddy. There are tons of idea's floating around right now with respect to how to make new business models around file sharing. It's not an issue with viable business model idea's, it's an issue with industry refusing to adapt to new ideas, often making it extremely hard for those in industry to innovate and generate new income for this industry around file sharing. I've come to the conclusion through my research that it's more of a control issue with incumbents in industry than it is with respect to the effects of file sharing, and "online piracy"

The problems with file sharing have less to do with financial benefits. Industry numbers are showing a shift on where the economic stability and income is. The financial problems industry is facing is largely in part to a refusal to change to where that income is located within the music industry. The United Nations has done a tremendous amount of research on this in the past, and most creative industries are going through a cycle of Creative Destruction (meaning some area's of industry have in large part become obsolete, however new parts of industry are being born, often offsetting the amount being lost by obsoletes). Many countries are finding this to be very true, including Canada. Here is the personal response from a UN researcher with respect to the Canadian study that found positive influence over music and P2P sharing:

http://www.dime-eu.org/node/477#comment-1

Gerd Leonhard (The Media Futurist) also has some excellent idea's on how money can be made within the music industry.

Also with respect to video, view parts 1 - 3 here for a possible value chain around new distribution channels:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LxCoCTc3T5Q

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oIqG7WgqQ-w&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2XftaEUYLz4&feature=related




September 19, 2010

James P said:

...
So which one is it? Is only the first to claim infringement that gets paid or do all rights holders get a piece of the damages?

Frankly to suggest what Mr. Henderson is saying is as funny as it is outrageous. I still like the idea of a fixed fee added to your broadband bill that acts as an all you can eat system. There are obvious logistical issues although I think it's the easiest way to decriminalize our population without the arrogance of thinking we can change its behavior.

After all, does anyone really think P2P is a fad to be waited out like disco? If you ask me, the whole legal delay/uncertainty excuse is starting to ware thin a decade after Napster.
September 19, 2010

Crockett said:

We are your best friends, really!
I really wish, and hope, that true musicians and artists who come here to read on this blog realize the folks who post here are ON YOUR SIDE! If you came here planning to see the peg legged pirates or the 'free culture' you are told to expect, well surprise! I buy my media and support artists I enjoy, as directly as possible.

I and most of the regulars main goal is to educate creators about the raw deal you get from your industry.

Read this article: http://www.zeropaid.com/news/9...bum-sales/

The truth is the world of media distribution has changed, no going back. Legislation, fines, 'education' are not going to turn back the clock. Yes, there are going to be job losses in the media industry but it need not be the artists. The infrastructure has changed, consumers expectations have changed and the distributors/studios are way behind the curve and fighting for their relevance. They see the writing on the wall and are going to do everything they can to fight the changes that are already here. If you think they are doing it for you, well .. just take time to consider.

Check some of the links in the above post on new marketing ideas, look into independent musician sites, be creative (that's your gifting, right?) .. and good luck.
September 20, 2010

Jason K said:

@Crockett
"I really wish, and hope, that true musicians and artists who come here to read on this blog realize the folks who post here are ON YOUR SIDE!"

It might surprise you that most predominant Canadian performers are on the side of fans here. Their main issue is getting paid, and not hitting their fans with a wooden paddle while collecting pay checks. Mr. Henderson once described the situation in Canada as special and different than the US. The reason why is because there's quite the split among Canadian performers in Industry right now on how to handle this for the past decade, and over the past 5 years maybe, a growing decent with Mr. Henderson and the industry as a whole because over the past decade nothing they have done has worked. Artists are starting to get fed up now!

Most I've spoken with in industry don't think the graduated response Mr. Henderson is fighting for will not work either. If Mr. Henderson gets his way and the government puts forth these measures, members of the CRIA will start to rapidly loose any new contracts. A civil war will start in industry.

Artists want fans to share their music, and want the ability for the fans to share it. They just want to get paid for it, and groups who Mr. Henderson represents do not want anyone to share anything. They want a closed controlled environment with only a few players like it always has been. They don't care about the artist, they care about their own interests and pay cheques. They don't seem to want to compete in a free market economy, and it's this and contract law, that's causing new income for artists to be overlooked.

So without the new income, Mr. Henderson's group continues to pit this irresponsibility on industries part on the backs of consumers. I can tell you that many in the music industry are tiring of this, and are active in learning exactly what's going on from all sides, on their own. They are becoming a hell of a lot more informed now, than 5 years ago. It seems that most of the propaganda from inside and outside of Industry is targeted now to the Boomer generation. There's a reason for that. They no longer have a lot of the younger artists and tech savvy generation on their side.
September 20, 2010

Crockett said:

More food for thought
This article talks about how the effects of market saturation of the LP album and the 1st oils crisis recession had similar economic/loss patterns to today [CD album saturation, 2nd oil crisis].

http://musicbusinessresearch.wordpress.com/2010/03/29/the-recession-in-the-music-industry-a-cause-analysis/

The same article states that the global music sales loss in 2008 was 8.3%. A separate article (of which I have to find again, I will post it when I do) does a deeper analysis of the causes of the industry losses and concluded than copyright infringement [aka 'piracy'] account for 20% of those losses.

The other 80% was due to changing technology, market saturation, competition from other entertainment sources (video games, social networking, you-tube, "1000" TV channels etc.), rise of the single and decline of the album, and finally the worldwide financial crisis.

You will notice that in the same time period movie studios were recording RECORD profits. Although you wouldn't know it by the constant crying of huge 'losses' due to piracy. Movies more so than music are a escapism form of entertainment that prospers in harder financial times. Just to clarify, profits are UP, in a RECESSION, and the studios are expecting that they are still loosing huge potential sales? Yeah .. right, whatever keeps you up at night.

Now for some math 20% of 8.6% = 1.72% financial losses in the music industry due to piracy in 2008.

1.72%? Jeepers, that sure is a huge amount! I wonder how much money was spent on legal and 'educational' campaigns that were both ineffective and massively detrimental to the relationships between artists and their audiences. I bet it might have been more than the 1.72% that was lost.

Artists and creators would do well to rethink their relationships with their traditional contractors and consider adopting more customer friendly methods of distribution. Your fans WANT to connect with you, social networking, direct internet sales, live performances are just some of the ways to accomplish that.

Again, think, innovate, create. Don't hand over 85% of your pay to the labels, no need anymore. Technology can be your friend, instead of the 'demon' the labels make it out to be. People have new expectations of you, from you. The Labels know they will have little part to play in this. Are they fighting for you or possibly for themselves? Consider. Good luck.
September 20, 2010

Joel said:

P2p and disco
I actually do hope P2P as it is now will be a fad to be thrown out like disco. Honestly, I want to see commercials on my online t.v. shows so that I know they will get some return on my viewing. Or at least proper sites that will give back a bit of what they make to the shows. As it stands now though, I have so much trouble with compatibility issues and quality issues that it's just easier for me to dowload a higher quality version, or, find a 3td party site to stream it from.

P2p as a distribution mehtode will be here for a long time. As a means to watch shows or movies online... only until the makers smarten up and actually give us a proper alternative.

Take Martin. Let's say someone offered him a subscription service that costs about 60-80 dollars a month (about the same as cable t.v.) With that service, he could access all the movies and shows he could ever want. Sure it may cost him more then buying the storage, but I'm sure considering the trouble it would save him he would jump on the oppertunity.

Tell me, if I told you that I have this awsome show you could watch, only to watch it, you need to give me 60$ for a cable subscription, then sit through 20 minutes of adds. Oh and tune in on monday nights at 8... so clear your schedual. And if you miss an episode, keep tuning in until we re-run it.... Would you really go for it?
September 20, 2010

Chris A said:

...
A lot of the TV I currently watch I watch online at the station's website. I dropped cable a bit ago due to the high cost for the few stations I actually cared about, and for the most part I can watch what I care about online via streaming from the stations themselves. Sure, some of it isn't all that great, but for some shows that doesn't matter at all.
September 20, 2010

IamME said:

Streaming Media
We're getting in to different problems here For some, it's not necessriliy feasible to ditch tradition TV distribution methods (Cable, Digital Cable, Satelite, etc.). For me, I have a monthly bandwidth cap on my Internet service and there are no unlimited services offered by my provider. If I go over the cap, my Internet stops working. On top of that the service can be a little eratic and it's the only Internet serice offered in my area. I don't have the super high-speed network which is available in large urban areas, I need the option to download and store the content (Though I could not download all I would like). I'm fine with paying to download, but it comes down to what is a decent price. It is $3.49 (Probably plus GST) to download a show from iTunes. Why? Why is it so expensive, when I can buy a season pack on DVD shortly after the end of the season for considerably less? I could see $0.49 or even $0.99 but no more than that. And I expect it DRM free, so I don't have to worry about loosing my content if I lose my licenses due to a catastophic Windows failure, because that "never" happens.

Yes, a song is usually $0.99, but it generally has vastly more replayability and marginally more justified. Most of the time TV shows are watch once and never again. Does this justify a $3.49 price tag?

With music and movies and TV they're trying to charge hard-copy prices for digital content. Most people want the download, but who takes the cost of bandwidth in to account. For me, it costs me just over $1 per gigabyte downloaded. For example, to downloaded a HD copy of Ironman from iTunes, it's $24.99 and the file size is 4G (This would most likely NOT be 1080p with HD audio!!!). In reality, it would probably use closer to 5G in bandwidth due to transmission overhead. So that would cost me approximately $29.99 and take two days for me to download. I could buy it on BluRay for less and have it NOW. THEN, I could sell it if I so choose. There's something wrong with this entire iTunes model. They're charging you more, giving you far less and laughing all the way to the bank. And they wonder why people resort to P2P.

I've said it a number of times, I will not pay for DRM/TPM protected Internet media. I WILL not pay retail prices for rental-grade media.
September 20, 2010

end user said:

...
@To Crockett's comment, we'd LOVE to offer viable products with fair value but when sites like Grooveshark continue to flourish, what incentive is there for other legitimate services to launch?

LOL basically you are saying you're clueless as to what the consumer wants. I'll tell you now what the consumer wants. Full access to music/movies/shows that is at least 1/2 price of packaged media which should be as all you re paying for is bandwidth costs and advertising coasts. Transportation, cd/dvd printing, case printing, and etc... are no longer there in the digital world so why is the price still the same? Also NO ONE wants to buy several version of a song so they can listen to it on their mp3 player or toaster.

By the way 99% of my dvd purchases are from pawnshops or second hand for $2-$5 which is what its worth to me.
September 21, 2010

end user said:

...
@Kennth Kendal said:
I paid $3000 for my computer and $1000 for my ipad and $400 for my phone and all three of these will be out of date in a few months and I have to buy new ones.

Really I wasn't aware computer equipment only lasts as long as the 16 pack of toilet paper. Sorry buddy but that equipment will last for year and year and if you paid 3K for a desktop you got ripped off royaly.

The bottom line is they should not be infringing copyright no more than they should steal something from a store.


Do you have Unicorns in your perfect world too? In that world a digital copy of a movie should be valued t minus the packaging and what ever else goes into a price of creating hard media.
September 21, 2010

end user said:

...
Ed Wilson said: Does it surprise Michael Geist that people whose livelihood is at stake take a direct and passionate interest in these issues? And that they would express such views here?


Isn't is surprising that almost 0 artists have said anything and its 99.9% the labels/rights holders that are pushing to pass laws to have the gov give them a crutch to a no longer viable business model.

If an artists has spoken for C-32 here please let up know who you are and please show us a link to your sales and how much you made from your music sales.

OH by the way I have not seem one movie in the theaters since the before the release of Iron Man 2. I used that money to get a nice 47" tv and just wait for the new release to show up second hand.
I get a new movie for $4 and 8 pack of popcorn for $8 and the whole family sees the movie for almost nothing compared to $60+ like is use to be for a family of 4 before each month/release. Yah love those cheap dvd's
September 21, 2010

Crockett said:

Look outside the window
@Ed Wilson "If an artists has spoken for C-32 here please let up know who you are and please show us a link to your sales and how much you made from your music sales."

Ever hear of Metallica? lol

http://www.theage.com.au/news/web/metallica-may-join-the-free-music-movement/2008/04/28/1209234731698.html
September 21, 2010

end user said:

...
Crockett said: Ever hear of Metallica? lol http://www.theage.com.au/news/...31698.html

Pretty funny how when you bite the hand that feeds you, you realize that now when you embrace your master you can get more money out of him/them/her

http://groups.google.ca/groups?hl=en&q=Metallica own their copyrights&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wg
September 22, 2010

JamesP said:

...
And what about the broadband charge idea. I feel people really dismiss it as impractical too quickly. It would be a charge you can opt out of. Just be ready to face the consequences if you get caught.

Once again, I haven't the slightest idea from a logistical standpoint how rights holders would be properly compensated. However, at least the formation of a kitty by each ISP, who's eventual destination is the pockets of the people who deserve it is certainly the right idea.

Hey...heres a thought! Maybe everyone (artists, music and film industry professionals, ISP's, balanced copyright, a non-partisan government committee...and Dr. Geist) can get together and try to pro-actively work towards a solution to that effect. It just may work!

(Note: The first time I heard a system like this proposed was by Fred Von Lohmann of the Electronic Frontier Foundation in the US).
September 22, 2010

end user said:

...
JamesP > And what about the broadband charge idea. I feel people really dismiss it as impractical too quickly. It would be a charge you can opt out of. Just be ready to face the consequences if you get caught.

Why the hell would I want to have my money that goes towards my Internet bill be used as a crutch extortion fee for a dying industry which refuses to change their business model. WHY DON"T YOU change your business model and offer unlimited access to all movies, shows and music. Its not that hard. THE RIAA will spend million upon millions legislating a suing when all it takes is to create a site where someone can go and pay and down load any show/move/song they want but of course that means doing proper customer service and giving the customer what they have been asking for. For the last what, 10 years?

Funny how people can create illegal file sharing websites and software all in their spare time and give people what they have been asking for yet an industry worth billions per year can't do it.

File sharing will never stop because people don't give a shit about your product. The internet has brought your products inflated price down to what its really worth, which in peoples eyex is 90% less then when they were forced to buy vhs tapes/music tapes/cd's/dvd/etc...
September 22, 2010

JamesP said:

...
first of all, breath. Theres a large vein popping out of your forehead and thats not healthy.

It isn`t ``my business model`` and I agree it needs changing. If you understood what I was saying then you would realize that this is a have your cake and eat it too situation. The RIAA would ether cease to exist due to a lack of people to sue or change it`s mandate towards being a true artist rights community like SOCAN who will do anything they can to avoid litigation. Granted the system would take tweaking. I don`t even know what I would peg the monthly charge at. But I know that I would pay it...and so would a lot of other people. If not for the moral requirement then at least for the peace of mind to know that they are not breaking the law every time they stream or download a new song movie or tv show. Your anger is seriously misdirected dude.
September 23, 2010

end user said:

...
JamesP >But I know that I would pay it...and so would a lot of other people


Go ahead and pay the racket fee I on the other hand will not pay a fee to a dying industry. You know with out public road and cars I would have never been able to get my computer which I use to infringe on by downloading "quality music" So why isn't there a tax on public roads, cars and computer parts to compensate those starving artists or better yet starving music execs whose companies own the copyrights to the artists music.

Hell wouldn't it be easier and less intrusive to just include an extra penny on gas every time you fill up to compensate those artists.

So as a photographer can I also get on this racket? After all with the interpolation software anyone who downloads a photo from my site could print it to a nice size and by pass paying me for making the print. Why shouldn't I be compensated from the Internet tax? Why is it only music artists.
September 23, 2010

Sam said:

@Jeremy Soule
Are you really threatening Professor Geist? Shame on you! He is one of the few who is in position and who has courage to stop this nonsense called Bill C-32, and you dare say such vile things about him. You are a despicable human being!

I have reported your "web site" as an attack site to Google and several other search engines since I saw some suspicious scripting present in your web pages. I also encouraged my colleagues to do as much. Good luck keeping it open.

And by the way, I intend to do the same with balancedcopyright web site as well. My anti virus software was "uncomfortable" when I visited that web site too.

As for this Henderson fellow, I am looking forward to having him stand in line for welfare come January next year. I bet then he will love "Joe the taxpayer" when he needs us to pay for his bread.
September 23, 2010

Napalm said:

...
@end user: "So as a photographer can I also get on this racket? After all with the interpolation software anyone who downloads a photo from my site could print it to a nice size and by pass paying me for making the print. Why shouldn't I be compensated from the Internet tax?"

Interesting question. I do have a good amount of my own photographs scattered around the internet on various sites. Some of them are "technical", and were posted with the intent that people will use them to learn something - as I also did by looking at their photos. It was never my intention to get paid for them - I just wanted to contribute to discussions where all participants were learning from each other.

Some of them are "arteestec" and I posted them for "bragging rights", my purpose being that the viewer says "this Napalm guy takes some damn fine pics".

I would have nothing against any of these pics being downloaded and stored on the hard drive by the viewers for their personal use.

However.... I think I would react if I would see one of these pics reprinted in a magazine, with the purpose of making money from it, without my permission. But I wouldn't if it were a non-profit publication.

So it all boils down to this: if you want to use them for yourself or some educational / non profit use, be my guest. But if you want to make money from it, I want my share too.

Incidentally this is the license for many "open source" or "free" apps: free for personal/home use, pay a license for commercial use.

Nap.
September 23, 2010

end user said:

...
@Napalm

See I have no problem with people downloading and using my photos for non commercial usage but obviously I don't want them making money out of it but even so If I have a commercial stock photo site with a business license shouldn't I and other photographers also get some money out of the internet tax. If not, why not? How come music artists have this privilege (well we all know politicians and laws can be bought) but other industries don't.
September 23, 2010

Napalm said:

....
@end user: "How come music artists have this privilege (well we all know politicians and laws can be bought) but other industries don't."

You answered yourself. There is MPAA and RIAA, but since there is no PIAA with deep pockets to "lobby" for you, you won't get a law for photographers.

Nap.
September 23, 2010

Crockett said:

Why consumers do not trust the content industry .
In the United States, there was something of a scandal when a congressional committee staffer inserted a “secret” amendment of “four little words” into an unrelated bill as a “technical amendment”—with the result that sound recordings would become works for hire.The resulting change was highly prejudicial to recording musicians and to the great benefit of the record companies that control the RIAA. The amendment was later repealed under intense pressure from performing musicians such as Don Henley, Sheryl Crow and Courtney Love. The staffer in question was subsequently hired by the RIAA 0_o

Yes, this was in the USA and it was a while ago, but it is such a prime example of *rap that goes on. Even today people all over the country and various jurisdictions are sued directly from Washington DC lawyers, all on alleged IP address. Pay $5000 or go to court, when just going to court is going to cost you more than $5000. Essentially racketeering, and it's happening today.

We don't need this in Canada, which is to say even the C-32 $5000 fine limit is too high (not too low) IMO. I find it quite revealing that the country with the most draconian IP 3-strike laws [France] has seen a significant rise in infringement sine they were introduced. The harder you hit, the less you are respected.
September 23, 2010

IamME said:

...
Oppression breeds contempt, contempt breeds rebelious behaviour. As I said a number of times, the hackers and crackers of today are miles ahead of the industry when it comes to technology. If you push a people hard enough, make something they want overly onerous to attain or rediculously expensive, they WILL turn to the underground to get what they want, whether that be buying illegal physical copies or using anonymity tools to download copies. Once the respect is lost, it's difficult or impossible to get it back.

When are they going to learn that oppression fuels the underground trade. If they worked with consumers instead of so desperately against them, the underground trade would certainly wither. It'll never go away, but it would certainly be smaller.
September 23, 2010

Sam said:

@ Napalm
You mentioned PIAA and I agree that photographers need their own association for sure. But who is going to protect us, ordinary citizens? Obviously not the Neocons in Ottawa and apparently not the Liberals either (I emailed a letter addressed to Ignatieff via the LPC web site and got a very dubious response). BQ is going to support their donours (Quebecor for example) so that only leaves NDP, and they don't have enough pull to stop this Bill.

It is amazing that people who have so little knowledge about technology and so little care about democracy get to dictate how we run our lives and our country. Quite sad.
September 24, 2010

Sam said:

...
A copy of the auto response from LPC about Bill C-32. It is apparently "obvious to them" that our Copyright regime (interesting choice of words I must say) need to be "modernized". They also feel compelled to be "responsible" to Neocons on this issue, where they have thrown mud at each other on pretty much every other issue.

"There is no question that Canada’s Copyright regime needs to be modernized. The Liberal Party believes that Canada needs to implement fair and balanced copyright rules. We must modernize our copyright laws to protect the works of our local artists, writers, poets, film-makers and musicians, and reach a balance between this protection and the needs of consumers.

There are plenty of international examples of copyright modernization that have reached these goals. These tried and tested models can serve as examples for Canada. We also had extensive consultations over the last months in Canada and these provided us with all the information needed to adopt a balanced bill that will address the pitfalls of the previous Bill C-61.

The Harper Conservatives have taken four and a half years to table this legislation, so as a responsible opposition we will take some time to review it. However, we believe that Canadian consumers who have legitimately purchased a CD or a DVD or other product should also have the ability to transfer their purchase onto their iPod or make a personal backup copy on their computer, so long as they are not doing so for the purposes of sale or transfer to others.

Thank you for taking the time to write.

Yours sincerely,

[name withheld]

Office of Michael Ignatieff
Leader of the Liberal Party of Canada"
September 24, 2010

Sam said:

...
I forgot to add, it is interesting how they all adopted the Fox News lingo of "fair and balanced", where in reality that term is now an oxymoron. Fox News is anything but fair and absolutely never balanced.
September 24, 2010

Napalm said:

...
@Sam: "But who is going to protect us, ordinary citizens?"

We have to keep trying... next time you vote... be wise :-)

Nap.
September 24, 2010

Write comment
smaller | bigger

busy
Tags:
, , ,
Share: Slashdot, Digg, Del.icio.us, Newsfeeder, Reddit, StumbleUpon, TwitterEmailPrintPDF
Related Items: