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."

Comments

Three words for Canadian CD-R/RW buyers

[FuzzyBad-Mofo]

Class. Action. Lawsuit.

Re:Three words for Canadian CD-R/RW buyers

[RalphBNumbers]

Why just the buyers? Hardware sellers are getting screwed here two.

Levy -> higher prices for consumers -> less sales -> less profits

Re:Three words for Canadian CD-R/RW buyers

[Zork the Almighty]

Who are you going to sue ? The government ? For making a law you don't like ?

Re:Three words for Canadian CD-R/RW buyers

[FuzzyBad-Mofo]

I'm not Canadian, but it seems to me the CRIA gave up any right to complain about citizens sharing music amongst themselves when they got their levy on media.

Re:Three words for Canadian CD-R/RW buyers

[Canadian_Daemon]

For every downloader, there must be an uploader.
but that uploader doesnt necessarily have to be canadian.

yes....

[xao gypsie]

....because cd sales drops have nothing to do with things like slow economies, declining quality in music, overpriced cds.....

xao

Re:yes....

[shark72]

"....because cd sales drops have nothing to do with things like slow economies, declining quality in music, overpriced cds....."

Music quality is a constant; the good-stuff-to-crap ratio is about the same today as it was ten or twenty or thirty years ago. Nostalgia ain't what it used to be: we tend to think of the 1970's as the decade of Dark Side of the Moon or The Long Run or (insert your favorite classic 70's album here), but there was a LOT of crap back then, too. We've just pushed it out of our memory. The recent huge drop in CD sales can't easily be attributed to music quality, as it's a constant.

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.

This leaves the economy. In one way the economy is definitely a big cause, as an unemployed person may be more liable to resort to pirating music than the same person would if they still had a job. But it's tough to blame the drop in CD sales entirely on the economy, for a couple of reasons: other forms of entertainment (including those that aren't piratable) haven't dropped nearly as much, and while the economy has had its ups and downs over the past several decades, this drop in CD sales is unprecedented.

Claiming that the utter explosion in music piracy over the past few years has absolutely no effect on CD sales is a phenomenon that I call "ignoring the elephant" -- that is, the two-ton elephant in the room wearing a shirt labelled "music piracy." The drop in sales is likely due to many factors, piracy being one of them, but this is a complex issue not easily solved by simple bromides like "it's the economy."

And, of course, economy or not, if the Canadian record companies think that piracy is part of the problem, it's their prerogative to do something about it. Sure, lowering CD prices, working with legitimate download sites, and education are key as well, but sometimes you've just got to kick some ass.

Re:yes....

[MikeXpop]

We tend to think of the 1970's as the decade of Dark Side of the Moon or The Long Run or (insert your favorite classic 70's album here), but there was a LOT of crap back then, too. We've just pushed it out of our memory. The recent huge drop in CD sales can't easily be attributed to music quality, as it's a constant.

Ha! I laugh at you. The 70's did have a lot of crap, yes. But it also had more gold than Fort Knox. DSotM, London Calling, The Clash, Nevermind the Bullocks, Wish You Were Here, The Wall, Meddle, [Insert Led Zeppelin album here]. We have nothing like that now. Now it's both crap (Pop-drivel Green Day, Good Charlotte, Backstreet Boys) or just plain "good" (Radiohead, Tool). We have no exceptional bands. At least none that are being pimped by the RIAA.

Disguise it all you want, music has declined.

(Ready for the real shocker? I'm 16.)

Re:yes....

[dadragon]

Because most of the time there's one good song per CD of 10-20 tracks. One song is not worth $15, so people download it.

Re:yes....

[Saeger]

The complete laundry list of reasons why CD sales are dropping...

1. People want online convenience, either from free p2p, or cheap iTunes, or other.
2. People are conditioned to view p2p AS FREE LIKE RADIO, and think nothing of it - it's an advertisement for a concert and merchandise.
3. A down economy.
4. DVDs and Video Games are a much better value!
5. People are done replacing their old LP/cassette collections.
6. Quality of music has dropped thanks to the soulsucking megacorp cookiecutter and "independent" clearchannel promoters.
7. Used CDs are easier to trade through ebay and the like.
8. Independent artists are more accessible now.
9. People are actively sticking it to the RIAA because they know how badly the artists are getting screwed.
10. 192 people are protesting perpetual copyrights...
11. ...unf.

Assign weights to each as you deem fit.

--

Re:yes....

[zephyr1256]

but there was a LOT of crap back then, too. We've just pushed it out of our memory. The recent huge drop in CD sales can't easily be attributed to music quality, as it's a constant.

While you have a point, I think you are unjustified in claiming that music quality is actually constant. First, music quality is a subjective factor. Those who think music quality has declined in recent years are correct, though, and no doubt it means they buy less new music. Some others may like new stuff, but even saying that the subjective quality of music 'evens out' or something is little more than a handwaving argument.

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.

But what you ignore is that the value of having a pressed CD has gone down in value to the customer. Even if actual prices have remained relatively constant, that does not the market equilibrium price for CDs stayed the same. Costs of production went down to the point that individuals can burn their own, and digital technology provides alternatives that further devalue the price that the market will bear. Market forces do not acknowledge copyright law or judge decisions. The Recording Industry wants to have their cake and eat it too, using the law to strongarm their customers into paying prices way above market price and keep high profit margins. The end result is inevitably a reduction in sales, primarily because prices are kept too high. Piracy(filesharing in this context) is a side effect of keeping these prices so high, not a cause of a reduction in sales.

But it's tough to blame the drop in CD sales entirely on the economy, for a couple of reasons: other forms of entertainment (including those that aren't piratable) haven't dropped nearly as much, and while the economy has had its ups and downs over the past several decades, this drop in CD sales is unprecedented.

You can't blame it entirely on the economy, but that doesn't mean the remainder must be mainly(or even significantly) due to piracy. Comparisons to other forms of entertainment only goes so far; other forms that haven't seen such drops most certainly have maintained prices more in tune with what the market will bear. Still, I would submit that the economy is a major factor, and moreso when combined with unreasonable expectations of the Industry about what their profit margins 'should' be.

Claiming that the utter explosion in music piracy over the past few years has absolutely no effect on CD sales is a phenomenon that I call "ignoring the elephant" -- that is, the two-ton elephant in the room wearing a shirt labelled "music piracy."

I don't think that is claimed by many people. What is, quite reasonably, claimed is that music piracy has no or little net effect on music sales. Let me explain: its true that people can obtain copies of songs for free and thereby get out of buying something; in some cases they might have bought an album, in other cases not. But there is another phenomenon associated with filesharing, and that is of people being exposed to new music that they would not have discovered otherwise, and as a result of that, going out and buying more CDs. A side benefit is that the customer knows what they are getting as well, so this is more total benefit. I can attest that this was the case with myself and most of my friends back in the days of Napster; I bought many more CDs than I did at any previous period in my life, or since then for that matter. The point here is, there are two elements(at least) that determine whether filesharing helps or hurts sales, the negative element due to people not buying when they otherwise would have and the postitive element of people buying when they otherwise wouldn't

Re:yes....

[thales]

You are missing one thing that isn't a constant, yhe number of titles released. As the RIAA members merge into larger and larger companies they are releasing fewer and fewer titles each year.

A CD that isn't released will sell ZERO copies

The RIAA is pushing formula music and not releasing as many titles, and it's the bands that haven't made it big that are getting hit the hardest. Some of these bands could have been this years big run away hit, but they never got recorded because they didn't have the formula sound the RIAA is looking for.

Hmm...

[EvilSporkMan]

So if you can download in Canada and you can download in the U.S., why don't the Canadians share American music for the U.S.ers and vice versa? Surely that wouldn't be too hard to rig up, if only by agreement...

Re:it makes little difference

[gl4ss]

..actually you can already claim that with kazaa.

there's some progs that install on your computer without your consent that always turn the uploading on(i don't remember how exactly these programs spread, but iirc it was a bug in kazaa itself, which may or may not be close. also i suspect that people would leave such backdoored .exes on as well causing it.).

Re:Difficulty

[psychogentoo]

They don't have to prove anything. You get sued, then they ask if you want to settle out of court or go through a lengthy trial process.

Its a lose-lose situation for the parties involved except for the lawyers and Celine Dion.

Subpeonas

[Anonymous Coward]

They won't be able to go after as many file swappers (per capita) as they have in the U.S. because Canadian law does not allow you to subpeona their ISPs without a warrant signed by a judge. We have no DMCA yet. Also, there is also no legal precedent a la RIAA vs Verizon to get the names of file swappers from ISPs.

How does the Canadian RIAA plan to track down these uploaders without names, addresses and phone numbers from ISPs?

Of course, once we sign on to the FTAA, we will be forced to ratify it and adopt the insane IP provisions of that "free trade" agreement, including jail terms for file swappers, making open source software outright illegal, and allowing corporations to copyright everything except 12 distinct processes (ex calendars). I'm really looking forward to the human genome being copyrighted and having to pay licensing fees for my very existance.

I can't believe it! I'm *actually* planning on voting NDP in the next federal election, despite the fact that I'm a small "c" conservative. That would have been unthinkable for me as recently as two years ago. This fact that our government is whoreing us to virtually criminal organizations like the RIAA/MPAA and Microsoft makes me sick to my stomach.

simple answers

[dirk]

Everyone seems to be asking the wrong questions. The questions have nothing to do with if P2P copying helps or hurts music. The simple question is "Do these people have a legal right to distribute this music?" And the simple answer is "no". Just because you own a copy of something in no way gives you the right to distribute copies of it to other people. Owning a book doesn't give you the right to make copies of it and hand it out on the street. Owning a photograph (that someone else took) doesn't give you the right to make copies and hand them out. Owning a copy of Linux doesn't give you the right to distribute binary only copies of it. Owning a CD doesn't give you the right to distribute MP3 copies of the music. IT doesn't matter whether it helps or hurts CD sales, the fact is you have no right to do it. People have the right (and should have the right) to decide what happens to the things they create. IF you want to distribute music via P2P, feel free to create some and distribute it. You have every right to decide what happens with the music you make. Just as other people have the right to decide they don't want you giving away their music for free over P2P.

Re:simple answers

[NSash]

The simple question is "Do these people have a legal right to distribute this music?" And the simple answer is "no". Just because you own a copy of something in no way gives you the right to distribute copies of it to other people.

You would have been correct if you had just said "Does the legal system currently permit you to distribute this music?" Of course, that would also be completely empty. The law should be what is right; something doesn't become right by being law. The legal system is very fluid, with laws being created, revised, re-interpreted, and stricken down continuously. It makes no sense to treat the current state of the law as something sacred.

I further object to your use of the word "right" because it implies that somehow, copyright restrictions are natural. They aren't. If I see someone execute a clever combination in a 2D fighter game, and I then use that same stratagem on him, he might well complain that I was copying him. Indeed, he had thought of it first... and my response would be, "tough." Laws restricting the ability to copy techniques, text, or items are completely artificial. The very ideas of copyright and patents have only existed for a few hundred years. This is not to say they are bad: patents, copyright laws, and trademark protection all exist for very good reason. But to imply that they are somehow natural, that such laws are as inevitable as laws prohibiting theft and murder, is ridiculous.

Re:simple answers

[Saeger]

People have the right (and should have the right) to decide what happens to the things they create.

And that's where a lot of people, including "real" artists, disagree with you. They don't have a selfish control-freak mentality, or hold The Law up as holy scripture set in stone, but they still manage to make a nice living without trying to enforce artificial scarcity or restrict people from standing on their shoulders.

The fact is that "intellectual property" is only something that can be owned as long as you NEVER let it out of its cage to infect other minds and culture. If it does get out, then the creation will only be respected in so far as society respects you and/or the old social contract (perpetual copyright).

IMNSHO, progress won't slow one bit just because it's no longer possible to enforce artificial scarcity.

"The economy of the future will be based on relationship rather than possession. It will be continuous rather than sequential." -- John Perry Barlow, co-founder of the EFF

--

It isn't the same as the US - thankfully

[rcpitt]

The Canadian government has already shown that when the law puts a significant percentage of the population in the position of being an un-caught felon, it recognizes that they have voted for change with their actions and moves to do something to remedy the situation.

Sometimes there are external (to Canada) influences that clog up the works and slow things down. Other times they do something that demonstrates the "law of unintended consequences" quite nicely ;)

We have pretty much recognized gay marriage

We are working on de-criminalizing (note: not legalizing) pot (much to the consternation of the US DEA - one of those external influences we get)

We recognized that "private copying" was a fact and was not likely to go away - so came up with the Blank Media Levy which might actually be a reasonable solution if the Copyright Board continues to show restraint

I make no guess as to what our dear government will do about "uploading" if anything; but they might.

In the mean time it should be noted that most of the large retailers selling music have lowered the prices significantly (the small retailers are being frozen out by the distributors and not getting the discounts "because they don't buy enough copies..." - a rant for another time). It remains to be seen if the number of units goes up. I expect it will - even though the total dollars may go down or stay even - and that is the point!

The dollars spent on music will likely stay even or maybe decline a bit - but this is not due to downloading, private copying, or whatever - it is due to external forces in action.

For example - the chocolate bar industry noted a decline in sales during the late 90s and early 2000s - and found that the reason was that their prime targets/customers (the teenagers) were using their disposable income to purchase cell-phone cards for text messaging and phone calls - leaving less to spend on chocolate.

Another influence - the music industry has released less music in recent years than they did previously - there is less to choose from and people are resisting (by downloading - "I've paid for 14 songs but only like 2 on this CD so I'll download another 12 to make up for it" maybe not done consiously - but it makes them feel better). The music publishers have also "perfected" the art of slicing and dicing the repetoir to force (or at least try to force) their target audience to pay for multiple CDs in order to get all the music they want, one or two songs per CD at a time - along with lots of crap put out as filler. I've suggested (to the Copyright Board) that this is in fact "tied selling" and should be viewed as a negative in adjusting the rate for the music levy - derating the "average" earnings per song in the calculation - they didn't bite this time but...

We've also had a bit of an economic turn-down recently too - but of course during such times people will always choose music over food won't they? ;)

The music distribution system is headed for a collapse - with the publishing companies and the industry associations losing out. Problem is that they don't want to lose their profit and influence so are fighting hard to lobby the governments to keep them around. This is what we have to fight. The continuation of an inefficient distribution system in the face of a complete paradigm change and disruptive technologies. It is the job of government to do what the population as a whole needs done in order to survive economically (and other ways but...) and if this means allowing one particular segment of an old industry to founder (the publishers) to the benefit of another segment (the artists) while keeping the general population from being all put in jail or saddled with onerous civil penalties for doing what "everyone is doing" then so be it - that's what we pay them the big bucks for.

There is no guarantee to any business that they will survive doing the sam

Re:Fair enough...

[rokzy]

I'm fine with copyright and them enforcing it. it's the levy that I disagree with. but it at least made sense under the assumption that people are free to download songs. although people are still legally allowed to download them, downloading is dependent upon there being someone uploading them, which is now being attacked.

now that they are active pursuing uploaders, demanding a levy seems even more ridiculous than before. imagine that they are successful and no one uploads any more and downloads stop, how can the levy be justified?

it would be like the government deciding that they should collect tax on sales of drugs while simultaneously prosecting the people selling the drugs.

you can't have your cake and eat it.