CRIA Prepares To Sue P2P Copyright Violators
ergo98 writes "The Canadian version of the RIAA, the CRIA (Canadian Recording Industry Association), has begun laying the PR groundwork for an initiative similar to that pursued by the RIAA in the US - threatening to file lawsuits against individual file sharers (specifically uploaders). They claim that CD sales have dropped by 23 per cent since 1999, attributing that drop to P2P, and apparently it isn't enough that the Canadian music industry gets a hefty presume-you-are-a-criminal levy attached on various devices and media."
Many readers also point to the Globe and Mail's version of the story. dsanfte writes "They will apparently only be targetting uploaders, because in the Copyright Board's judgement, P2P downloading is legal under Canadian law."
In Canada, it is legal to borrow content (a CD, movie, etc) from a friend (or stranger), and copy it for your own personal use.
It is not legal to MAKE copies of content you own, and distribute it to friends (or strangers).
This is why downloading is legal (you're 'borrowing' a copy, and copying it), but uploading is illegal (you're copying what you presumably own, and distributing it.)
We pay additional taxes on media to support this system. I think its just gone up again, with MP3 players now being taxed as they represent blank media on which you might copy somebody else's content.
This is my udnerstanding of our system. Corrections are invited.
"Old man yells at systemd"
Music pricing is another constant. In fact, in the USA, it's gone down a bit. The average price of a CD is down to $13.50 in the US. In 1984, $9.99 was considered a decent price for an LP. That would be $17.30 in 2002 dollars. So, again, the recent huge drop in CD sales can't be attributed to pricing alone, as it's a constant.
In 1984, Movies cost around $100cdn to buy, IIRC. I see lots of DVD movies in Walmart for $14.99-24.99, including new and popular films. A large majority are priced cheaper than the movie soundtracks, something that always makes me chuckle.
I can put a collection of a years worth of "popular" and "pseudo-popular" programs on a couple DVDs. If uploading is quashed, then a much harder to regular and control sneekernet will quickly be established in schools. It's not that hard to do.
One thing I have been waiting for is a small device for doing PTP sharing in public. It would be unstoppable in a setting like a school - integrating 802.11 into an iPod is not technologically a difficult problem. I can imagine it giving people strokes in the record industry though - not just schools, but think subways, whatever.
Once the public has decided there is nothing wrong with 'free' music - then guess what, there probably will be free music. There effectively is now - think to the radio. There is no reason musicians cannot make money touring. There is good entertainment value in records. What will change, is the luxury offices for RIAA executives and private jets for the metallicas of the world will end.
This fight has never been about music copying. They're scared shitless of losing the distribution and production channels.
..don't panic
I have no idea exactly what changed with the new ruling, but I know the Canadian ruling was like this.
You have an album, a friend wants it, you copy it for him. That's illegal.
You have an album, a friend wants it, you loan it to them, they copy it. That's legal.
In short, loan someone a CD, they can legally copy it here.
The drop in sales is more likely down to the amount of people boycotting the thieving shits in the industry (Not bought an album since early 2000 myself), and the general decline in quality of releases. I mean when we have shit like American Idol, Canadian Idol etc... Is it any wonder nobody buys the CD's anymore... It's for one very simply reason.
It's all mass produced, carbon copy shit.
Is the way music is mixed and mastered. Today everything, is limited and compressed to hell. They squash all the dynamic range out of the music to make it sound louder. This pissess me off. I have a really nice setup that can reproduce impressive dynamics, I want to get use of it. But if the music is popular (this isn't done with Jazz and Calssical often thankfully) it is just limited like nothing else. It can be crap like Britney Spears or good stuff like Evanescence or Lacuna Coil, doesn't matter, it's all limitied to hell.
This just wasn't done in the 70s, probably because I don't think the look-ahead peak limiter had been invented yet. Even the crap still had at least SOME dynamic variance.
Then there is the fact that they are feeding everyone through the Antares Autotune all the time, even during live performances. I mean one of the thing that made some of the greats unique was their playing/singing OUT of tune. Heck, some kinds of music regularly makes use of quarter tones which is "out of tune" by western musical thinking.
I agree, there has always been shitty music. Hell, I've played shitty classical form the 1400s, it's not like there weren't crappy composers back then. The problem is lately they seem to be trying to homogonize all music and make it so that people literally CAN'T become great, even if the try.
This isn't even to mention their greedy licensing practises and their illegal behaviour.
As always, RTFA, or here (from a previous Slashdot story), or Canadian Copyright Law.
Indeed, it appears to be legal to download copyrighted songs in Canada, even according to copyright experts and internet law experts. It hasn't been tested in court yet, but it seems prosecutors believe it is legal too so they won't prosecute.
But as the article states, uploading (broadcasting) is clearly illegal. So as long as we Canadians just leech, we're fine (legally speaking).
You can see how the levies are calculated here and read the actual Certified Tariff documents here
Visit us at http://www.iblist.com!