Just as parliamentarians voted to break for the summer, the Industry Committee (member list here) issued its report on counterfeiting and piracy, unambiguously titled Counterfeiting and Piracy are Theft. The report and its recommendations are stunning as they represent the most lopsided copyright related report since Sam Bulte chaired the Canadian Heritage Committee. The Committee acknowledges that the statistical evidence is "at best, very crude estimates", so it chose to adopt a 1998 OECD study that places global counterfeiting at US$600 billion (never mind that the OECD has just released a report setting the number at one-third that figure).
While no one supports counterfeiting, the Committee's zeal to address the issue is striking, even going beyond the roadmap from the Canadian Anti-Counterfeiting Network. In particular, the report makes the following recommendations:
- ratify the WIPO Internet treaties (seemingly because the U.S. has placed us on the Special 301 list)
- increase damages and penalties under the Copyright Act
- create a new offence for the distribution of pirated works
- create a new offence for the manufacture or distribution of circumvention devices for commercial gain
- create new administrative penalties for the importation of counterfeit and pirated goods
- create a new criminal offence for manufacturing, reproducing, importing, distributing, and selling counterfeit goods
- strengthen civil remedies for counterfeiting and piracy infringement
- increase the resources allocated to the RCMP and Justice to counter counterfeiting and piracy
- prioritize RCMP and Justice copyright enforcement
- encourage prosecutors to seek more significant penalties for counterfeiting and piracy violations, including imprisonment
- create a new IP Crime Task Force
- new border measures, data sharing, and the creation of an IP registry
The government will be required to respond to this report in the fall. While it may not accept all the recommendations, this report dramatically escalates the pressure for one-sided copyright reforms that mirror DMCA-style laws.
Update: The CACN unsurprisingly welcomes the report, specifically noting the call to ratify the WIPO Internet treaties, while stating that "the time for research, study, and talk is over."
The reliance on the OECD figure is just ridiculous. Particularly since the OECD report at page 23 notes that ‘The overall costs of counterfeiting in the world today are
normally estimated to be 5-7 per cent of world trade. *There is no substantial aggregated data to support the high percentages*, but the figures are now accepted and used to illustrate the extent of the counterfeiting problem’
In other words, the OECD itself, in its 1998 Report, noted that the figures were *unsubstantiated*. At least in the more recent report, they have attempted to be more rigorous, although even there they acknowledge that the figures are based on estimates which are effectively produced by multiplying actual counterfeit seizures by some assumed figure.
educational moment
Thanks Michael.
They are looking to strengthen the rules even more so that copyright can be used as a tool of intimidation without giving back even minimal rights of fair use.
I’ll make sure each one of these MPs gets a copy of this DVD [ link ] with a note explaining how often piracy != copyright violation != unfair use.
Too bad I have absolutely no confidence that they would look at it.
It was a dark and stormy night
On the day that EMI releases results showing a quadrupling of sales on DRM-free music, I can see this lobbying being successful, draconian new laws enacted which then devastate the new market EMI just created. The entertainment industry will be back lobbying to have all that DMCA crap removed because it’s killing their business!
The real problem may not be whether they watch it but whether they understand it.
But, to the mater at hand, I’ve seen comments from the American recording industry pundits suggesting that since their figures show that the value of intellectual property losses is greater than the losses from real property crimes such as bank robbery, armed theft, breaking and entering and other crimes involving physical property that the best use of currently available law enforcement would be to ignore the bank robbers, et al and go after the people copying CDs or DVDs even down to copying for their friends and such.
I’d hate to think that Canadians and Canadian politicians might be so swayed as to believe that it’s better to pursue and arrest someone for giving a friend a copy of a CD and give the bank robbers carte blanche.
(We were just recently shocked by an armed robbery of a jewelry shop in Oakridge Mall here in Vancouver. Good folks that run the store, kept their door locked against casual entry and the criminals still got in and took away $2 million in gems and such. I’d hope that the police would treat this as more serious than someone in the same mall selling counterfeit My Little Kitty handbags.)
Remember: pircacy estimates are based on the fallacy that one pirated copy = one lost sale. If someone has no intention of ever buying the product in the first place that lost sale was never a potential sale to begin with.
i agree with the previous post re: piracy estimates. movie studios are happy to assume that anyone who views a pirated movie would have bought the DVD but guess what, the guy watching the movie that was camcorded in a theatre has no intention of ever purchasing the DVD.
“create a new offence for the manufacture or distribution of circumvention devices for commercial gain”
Does anyone else see this particular legislation as being problematic for what should otherwise be completely legitimate backup and archiving tools?
And what if circumventing the copy protection is necessary in order to simply to make the work accessible to someone because the publisher neglected to consider a particular sector of possible consumers? Electronic book readers immediately come to mind as being a prime candidate in this regard.
And of course, if the law tries to make explicit exemptions, then they inadvertently confine all future research to those areas, possibly impeding technological improvements that may use approaches that are as yet unthought of.
This is bad. This is very bad.
Is there anything we can do to let our opinion be known in opposition of this proposal?
Mr.
Why not just put a 1% tax on all internet connections that goes to the music/film/tv artists and call it even?
Mr.
None of these laws are protecting public interest or the economic future of Canada.
Why add the administrative overhead of new criminal classifications and administrative costs on the government? It doesn’t help to rectify any situation, adds a burden to the government, and makes every day citizens criminals.
Clearly no common sense or thought has gone into these proposals. It’s pure reactionary BS combined with lobbyist legislation. The spineless corruption of the Canadian government in the last 7 – 10 years has never ceased to amaze at how low it will go for a little cash.
it makes no cents
Why can’t these firms just classify their failure as such, rather than costing themselves more and more money on faux attempts to “solve” the problem by ruining the freedom of societies?
senior kahuna
I cant believe reasonable people can come up with such tripe. This idiotic attempt to control freedoms and expression for the vast majority of Canadians must be stopped. DMCA in the states is such a horrific endeavour that it hopefully will be repealed. Please keep this junk out of Canada. Our lives are intruded on enough by big government and corporate empires. This greed of the elites must be stopped. The wealth of this nation is controlled by a few. The agenda of these elites is to keep the general population in mind-numbingly boring jobs, and to feed them world-class cr$p for entertainment. A breath of fresh air is desperately needed in the developed economies. Free expression, as shown by open-source software, creative commons and the web as examples, must be allowed to flourish. To paraphrase one ‘elite guy of the people’ – Never in the field of human endeavour has so much cr$p been foisted on so many by so few.
Who Contributed To Committee Members?
Thank you for this, Michael. It churns the stomach to read but it’s necessary to know.
Is there a source to find out (as you have with Bev Oda and Sam Bulte before her) who from the various media and telco lobbys have contributed to the coffers of these committee members?
I think a concerted public effort (or campaign) needs to be made to expose the continuing lies from the industry lobby; to show up the shameful way our members of parliament are allowing themselves to be manipulated on behalf of corporate greed; and to give some very vocal push-back to these monstrous efforts to drag us into the DMCA quagmire.
Cheers
Is “fair use” a part of Canadian law? If so, how does the court resolve the conflict between fair use and criminalized copyright circumvention?
Flip a coin?
One thing I would like to know is who is pushing the Industrial Committee.
One other thing.. these “stats” they use can be fudged to make it look like the situation is worse than it really is. I think we’re getting the industry’s spin on the situation as always.
my concerns
My biggest concern is DRM. While claiming that the purpose of DRM is to reduce piracy, the reality is that its used to control consumers and eliminate choice. My choice to watch a Blu-Ray movie or television program on my computer screen for one example. My choice to listen to a song I bought off iTunes on my iRiver mp3 player for another example.
My second biggest concern is anti-circumvention legislation. This is essentially giving legal protections to DRM, which as I stated above, is bad, bad, bad.
My third biggest concern is protectionism. The lobbying by the music and movie industry to gain protection from a new distribution channel, the internet, is very similar to the plight of a number of other industries (think of the auto-industry or US steel mills) seeking protection from products produced in other countries. While I would assert that protectionism is almost always a bad decision, in the case of the music and movie industry, its downright ridiculous. While the auto and steel industries can successfully argue that significant job losses would result if they were not protected, I don’t think the same can be said of the music and movie industry. (perhaps the movie industry can claim job losses in Toronto and Vancouver filming)
I used to buy a lot of DVDs and CDs. However, I am so tired of hearing about the greed of the film and music industries that I’ve started to change my life style. My first step was throwing my television out. However, I can still play both DVDs and CDs on my computer. The packaged films and music I’ve bought until now will just have to last me for the rest of my life, because I refuse to support the greed of these industries.
So, instead of buying more CDs, I’m playing the piano again. It may not be the highest quality music, but I’m having fun. Instead of buying DVDs, I’m reading more books, starting with Jane Austin (“Sense and sensibility”) and other writers no longer covered by copyright.
I’d like to encourage everyone to be more creative and less passive in the use of their free time. We don’t need the music industry and we don’t need the film industry to have a good life.
Can’t prove Damage
One thing that I find interesting with digital copy
is that it is impossible to prove damage caused by illegal copying (massive pirating or file sharing).
If someone copies a CD, it doesn’t physically cost the copyright holder any money (as opposed to stealing a physical CD). AT best, it could cost them money in the form of lost sales.
Here lies the problem. How can you prove that if that person had not copied the CD (downloaded music/movie/bought obvious fake copy), they would have otherwise bought the CD? You can’t. People have a finite amount of money to spend. They can only purchase a finite amount of CDs. That means they will pick and chose what they buy, and only purchase so many. That’s it. Any items beyond this will never be bought. If the CDs they copy are items they didn’t like enough to pay the asking price for, they would have never bought it.
That means copying is not actually costing the copyright holder any money!
Even if they knew how many copies are made doesn’t
mean they would have ever been purchases.
Also, many people may first copy to examine the item, and then purchase if they like it. I listen to the radio, and then buy CDs of songs I like. I could just tape them, but I prefer to buy.
If I had copied first, then this would have not
been lost income. They are missing a huge advertising opportunity. People like to try before they buy. They wan to tel their friends and have them try first before they buy.
If you want to create an internet upswelling for a new CD, then everyone must be able to try it in a convenient manner (ie, download from web, or get by e-mail and listen wherever as many times as they want) so that they can learn to like it and pass it on.
Limiting this is shooting yourself in the foot! This is the reasonf for declining sales. I go to a store, and I dohn’t know most of the CDs! Thus I don’t buy!
Ryan
It doesn’t actually cost the copyright holder any money when someone illegally copies, but it DOES cost them their copyright. Or at least a portion of it.
Oh, I can hear the objecters already… “But the copyright holder still has his copyright!” Ah… actually, he doesn’t. Or at least he doesn’t have as much of it as he did before. Here’s why.
Copyright literally is the “right to copy”. This is exclusively given to the creator of the work, and then he or she further gives people permission to copy, but at no point does anyone other than the creator of the work have an actual “right” to copy unless explicitly given by the copyright holder. When a person commits copyright infringement, they violate the exclusivity that is intrinsic to the notion of copyright and the actual loss to the copyright holder is in the form of this exclusivity (exclusive, after all, does mean that nobody else is supposed to do it… so when somebody else does, the copyright holder really does lose some of what he once was supposed to be entitled to). The nature of exclusivity is that once some of it is lost, it really cannot ever be recovered, so it is up to a judge in a copyright infringement case to determine what measure of compensation is appropriate for the amount of exclusivity lost.
Anyone who says copyright infringement equates to a lost sale is either uninformed, or else trying to persuade through the hope of getting sympathy, and not actually looking at the facts.
Dear Canadian Politicians responsible for this tripe,
Please reconsider your stance, which seems to be: bend over and lube up for american luvin.
It is obvious that there is collusion between the block, liberals and conservatives. Canadians are not dumb enough to continue to vote back and forth between the 2 big parties – it is OBVIOUS you have all sold out.
Canadian VOTERS will throw you all out on your recently violated behinds if you allow american/multinational corporate interests to supersede our rights.
Choose wisely,
Concerned Canadian
PS this goes for privatizing health care too – download ‘sicko’ from your favourite torrent site please – the maker of the film says it’s ok – thus, not a crime. It will show you the reality of selling out to corporations.
I must say, these kinds of reprioritizations are hardly a good use of tax-payers money. And for what? So that rich media companies can get deeper pockets? I’m sure there’s plenty of much more worthwhile places to spend our country’s money than funding Hollywood, the Music Industry, and all the Lawyers in-between them and their customers.
Also, note that even if Canadians had an impossible 100% piracy rate, that is only about 35 million people. Now let’s look at China, Vietnam, Thailand, and many of the other Asian countries (not to discriminate, but have witnessed this with my own eyes during my travels) where piracy is rampant. Their population is _tens_ of times as high as ours and actual piracy rate is many times greater (37 times for China alone).
Not only that, but not just “piracy for private use” which is no doubt the more common case for most Canadians, but blatant “Piracy for Commercial use” (i.e. illegal reselling of counterfeit material). I am not advocating Piracy in either case, but certainly the reselling of counterfeiting items is much more hurtful to the bottom dollar.
So, finally, they change our laws and _boom_ all of “Canadian Piracy and Counterfeiting” goes away. So now the Industry has now eliminated a whooping 1% of Global Piracy (at most). What do we, as Canadians get in return? Draconian laws that benefit no one but multinational corporations? Reduced government services to hunt down and fight the copyright perpetrators?
The reason for targeting Canadians? Well most likely due to proximity, easy access for lobbying. It certainly has nothing to do with the rate of Canadian Piracy, since we are such a low population country we are, at most, a drop in the global bucket of piracy, even if each and every one of us were horrible, horrible, copyright-infringing individuals as “they” would seem to want us believe.
Hey Steve can you see Tony Blairs Feet Y
It seems unfortunate that our current government seems more interested in supporting the interests of the bought politicians, and special interest lobbies (movie industry, etc…) of our southern neighbour than the well beings of Canadian Businesses and Citizens.
We know you’re not terribly aware of what goes on in the world Steve, but stop trying to out do Tony Blair in being Bush’s lap dog.
As for the Industry committee members, I know numbers are difficult to understand… but then GET THE NUMBERS from someone that doesn’t have an interest in the outcome. NO the industry reps don’t count even if they bought you a nice lunch. Canadian voters aren’t paying your salary for you to sit on your backsides. Do some real work rather than taking what the industry reps type up for you that you hand in as your own work. Understand the issues and represent the interests of your constituents. That might require you talk to them, and even listen to what they have to say.
THEN THEY MIGHT CHOOSE TO RE-ELECT YOU, if you represent them.
aren’t Canadians already paying a tax o
I assume the “industry committee” isn’t demanding that the Canadian government repeal that tax.
To Ryan L.: The flaw in your logic is that it is indeed safe to assume that if the person acquired a ripped copy of a CD or song, they could have paid for it instead. The only way this could not be the case is if the songs in question are just plain not in the market, thus making it impossible to acquire through proper channels. Saying “they didn’t like it enough to buy” or “they can’t afford to” are not a valid arguments in the least. If they like it enough to acquire a copy for themselves, then they like it enough to purchase it.
Like you mention, there’s legal alternatives to trying before committing the money. In addition to the radio, most record stores (on and offline, I’ve noticed) have the capability for consumers to listen to the CD before buying it, so they can tell if it is indeed something they’d be interested in. Or they can listen to it from a friend. There’s no need for a copy at all.
Disappointed wrote: \”The reason for targeting Canadians? Well most likely due to proximity, easy access for lobbying.\”
Don\’t forget weak Canadian leaders, greed, and lack of respect for Canadians by the government.
Felldon wrote \”My biggest concern is DRM. While claiming that the purpose of DRM is to reduce piracy, the reality is that its used to control consumers and eliminate choice.\”
Yes, plus DRM also permits artificial lifespan changes. Undoubtedly, we will see online music stores go bankrupt or close down, as with any business. Then, when you upgrade to a new version of your player or operating system, do you still get to hear your music? Very probably not. DRM ensures that all \”sales\” are really rentals, and you don\’t get to decide the lifespan.
—
That said, I support the industry on this. I think it should be an immediate death sentence for attempted infringement of copyright. Possibly two death sentences for actually infringing. So, will there suddenly be a $600 billion leap for the content industry? Or will people simply avoid anything to do with the products, and find safe, cheap alternatives such as good ol\’ records?
Consumer laws that side entirely with industry simply remove the desire to be a consumer. Sales go down, not up. Duh.
Internet
“I used to buy a lot of DVDs and CDs. However, I am so tired of hearing about the greed of the film and music industries that I’ve started to change my life style. My first step was throwing my television out.”
I agree. I refuse to watch, download, or see movies from the MPAA & RIAA, except for music CDs from Nettwerk because they have put themselves in the line of fire. Youtube/Google video is much more satisfying these days, esp. with all the independently made documentaries coming out recently. I too used to buy a lot of CDs, but I couldn’t even afford all the ones I want to buy (wasn’t there an antitrust price fixing lawsuit against the record companies ~1994? Why haven’t prices come down yet?)
And look ma, no DRM on youtube, so far. If Adobe Flash incorporates DRM, I will use the Free Software Foundation’s Gnash Flash-replacement. It’s quite good these days.
Jurisdiction
As I understand the copyright laws it supposed to be the copyright holder who is responsible for protecting their copyright rights.
Why is the government criminally prosecuting copyright violators? The government should stick to creating and maintaining a civil court system so that intellectual property holders can sue for economic damages.
Imagine if I distributed my furniture all over town and expected the police to monitor it to ensure it wasn’t stolen and if it was to go looking for it and conduct an investigation and prosecute the thief. All for free. Keep in mind the police don’t normally look for stolen goods. I know sometimes they go after organized car theft rings and such but my old pick-up is gone and I’ll never see it again.
A long time ago intellectual property was different from real property. I’d like to stick to the difference. I know there is a debate to be had. Some day the Supreme Court may have to answer the question.
Overpriced
Nobody has said it so I will. People are stealing because the artists and distributors are overcharging.
There is a difference between creating copyright protected work and the distribution of copyrighted work. What I mean is; any idiot can write a “Star Wars” but it takes a good distributor to get it in the theatres. And depending on a million different factors it may require a good marketing/promotional plan.
Popularity vs economy of scale.
It takes the same amount of brainpower and time to write “Star Wars” as it does to write “BattleStar Galactica.”
The only difference is that for reasons that no one knows and never will know Star Wars was big and…you know the rest.
Or if you prefer That 70’s Show vs That 80’s Show. Or Madonna vs Cindi Lauper. Whatever.
The crux is each movie, dvd, cd or book is priced the same. This seems like price fixing or anti-dumping of some kind. The distributors sell all the artists’ creative works at the same price. Usually what the market will bear. At first.
I recall the guy from Metallica, Lars Ulrich, running around trying to convince people that his intellectual property rights were being trampled. I pulled my hair out yelling at the tv that he is not as talented as he thinks and here’s why.
NOBODY knows why his band was successful and the millions of other metal heads weren’t. Other than market saturation. Furthermore if he and his band wrote some songs and gave them to an unknown band to record and release (without anyone the wiser to the source) there is absolutely no guarantee it will be a hit. Whereas Metallica can release caterwauling and expect radio time, sales and merchandising based on the total fluke that they had a song a long time ago that for some reason, that NOBODY know why, was popular.
Usually when something is manufactured in the millions it gets less expensive. But that seems the exact opposite with creative works. The next time you look in the bargain bin you’ll see what I mean.
This goes against our free market economy principles and people know that. Artists and distributors are overcharging for a service* that they cannot guarantee and which took the same amount of time and creativity as the other artists’ creative work that you didn’t like.
*I maintain that a cd, dvd and even a book is a service (entertainment) and not a product (a stack of paper bound on one end).
Think about it; if a plumber could fix one toilet, go home and through the miracle of photocopying fix 1000 toilets in less time it took to fix the first he wouldn’t paid as much now would he?
Unlike a craftsman or technician an artist cannot say with any certainty that his work will perform as intended. A ditch-digger can certainly dig a ditch but a writer cannot certainly entertain.
I wonder when they will treat murder,rape,child abuse,and drug sales as real crimes and create harsher penalties for them? Until they have real,concrete results on those fronts why bother about copyright infringement?Nobody dies if I copy a CD/DVD and give it to friends or family,nobody dies if I cam a movie in the theatre.If people were being killed or physically hurt by copyright infringement I could understand the importance they want to place on it.But until violent crimes and drug sales hit ZERO I think it is an insignificant side issue,that should be treated as the minor problem it is.
Right on target
[Remember: pircacy estimates are based on the fallacy that one pirated copy = one lost sale. If someone has no intention of ever buying the product in the first place that lost sale was never a potential sale to begin with.]
Bingo! That is what most everyone seems unfathomably unable to understand.
The DMCA is a case of “Hey! look there” while doing something while you look away.
They can hold the piracy cup as high as they want, it’s got nothing to do with the reason for the DMCA.
It got to do with locking it so they can control everything that is art.
-You put some stupid encryption
-You change law so that anybody trying to go around that is a criminal (worst than many violent crimes).
-Then you outlaw the distribution of the way to go around that encryption and you outlaw also the fact to talk about how to do it. Thus researchers cannot find or say anything because you just sue them, even if the encryption is pointless.
-Then you try to make sure every electronic devices has that encryption knowledge and that nobody can mess with that. (You like your own PC telling you “Your access is denied” to your harddrive?
-Then you try to connect everything to the internet, wirelessly if the need arise. In many blu-ray box, you see a warning saying this disk might not work if you don’t update the firmware on your blu players. (I’m sure it’s the same for HD-dvd).
Then, when a big disaster hit, you disabled the playing of all the media that were talking about that, illustrating that or just showing that because (“We need time to heal”). Imagine, a plane crash in the ocean, you can prevent the playing/reading of all movies/songs/texts that speak about a place crashing, simply because to access this material, you always need a little token that is only available online.
And if, by any chance, we were to be ruled by some extremist, they could just flip the switch and remove EVERYTHING so that they can put a few stuff that are ‘their way’.
This scheme is so real that everybody in the industry has gone against Microsoft something like 5 years ago when they were describing it as Paladium. Everybody was enraged that MS wanted to do it and charge $ for each access to a document (and that everybody needed a MS access credential).
I would say they are going back there slowly, if they can.
To those wondering about the cost of the DMCA, just stop. It will cost nothing. It’s just so that they can flag peoples as war criminal and extradite them to the US. Nothing would happen in our court as we are really, really too soft on Justice.
What should worry elected peoples now is that they are going after all the independant artist right after everything is in place because they cannot pay for everything that is needed to have content to play in this new world. I mean, patent sure are’nt cheap. What’s next? Close the text files that contain corporate earning reports so they can only be opened with Word 2010 and the correct keys?
to sense
I probably have no business submitting my opinions here, as I am not a Canadian citizen. However, given my circumstances over the past year I will post them: I work as a web designer and graphic artist supplying ‘packaged graphics’ and tools for web page construction. Last year I experienced a drastic reduction in sales and could find no reason for this until I received a letter from a fellow artist about another vendor selling my work. After investigation, I discovered that a woman in Alberta, Canada was purchasing all of my work, and the work of other artists, painting out our signatures and copyright, and reselling our work. I am not a big ‘Entertainment Industry’ company, just one man working hard to provide for my family, and was shocked that anyone would be brazen enough to commit such an act. I contacted my local law enforcement office to ask what could be done, they refered me to a federal agency, who, in turn, referred me to a division of the RCMP, who informed me that nothing could be done. I now have to work harder, and monitor my sales daily to try to thwart her theft, while earning less money. Over the past year, I have learned much about copyright infringement laws in the US, and lack thereof in Canada. And, after months of phone calls and writting letters, I finally suceeded in filling criminal charges, but now I have to wait until she crosses the border into the US, and even then, I doubt if she will stop because there is no law in Canada to prevent her from continuing this crime as she is not violating Canadian citizens. In my research I contacted a copyright attorney in Los Angeles who gave me the full story of how ‘file sharing’ and other forms of copyright infringement have crippled the music industry to the point where it can longer recover to its’ previous state, and from my own experience with a single thief, I can imagine how thousands, if not millions, of such occurances could destroy an entire industry. I have to work a second job to compensate for the lost revenue due to a single person comitting this crime. Personally, I am not interested in recouping my financial losses, only in making this practice illegal everywhere. I cannot speak for the entertainment industry, but for myself, I work too hard to have someone steal my work just because they can get away with it. A few other entries in this blog mention the passing of a Canadian DMCA law as in infringement on their
freedom, I have always thought that my freedom to do what I will extends to the point just before it infringes upon another human beings’ freedom to do the same, and there it stops. If someone, in any industry, takes the time, spends the money and energy to create a product to sell for the pupose of earning a living for themselves and those in their employ, they have the freedom, and the right, to charge what the market will bear for their product, according to supply and demand, because it belongs to them, in every sense of the word. When you buy a CD, DVD or anything else, you have purchased the right to enjoy it any time you want, not the right to alter, copy or distribute it, as this infringes upon the creators’ right to earn a living selling it. Why spend your hard earned money on something at a store when it’s available on a peer to peer network for free? Because a fellow human being put their money, time and energy into creating it so you could enjoy it.
The decline of CD sales has eliminated thousands of jobs in the music industry, and the motion picture industry is not far behind. If the demand for a product vanishes because it is being made available for free, the supply will vanish as well.
Concrete Bucket | Industrial Concrete Bucket | Shri Bajrang Industries.
Concrete Bucket | Industrial Concrete Bucket | Shri Bajrang Industries.
Industrial Concrete Bucket Supplier and Manufacturer of Construction Machinery, Industrial Concrete Bucket and Industrial Concrete Mixer offered by Shri Bajrang Industries, New Delhi, New Delhi, Delhi, India.
Keywords:->
Concrete bucket, industrial Concrete bucket, Shri bajrang industries, Mixer Supplier, Mini Crane Manufacturer, Construction machinery, industrial Concrete.
Contact Details
Shri Bajrang Industries, New Delhi
Mr. Sunil Vashist ( Owner )
Village & Post – Jharoda Kalan, Near Malla Talab
New Delhi, Delhi – 110 072, India
wesite : http://concretebucket.in/
Email:shribajrangindustries@rediffmail.com
Mobile:+(91)-9555188879