Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

CRIA Prepares To Sue P2P Copyright Violators

Posted by timothy on from the cold-up-there dept.

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."

42 of 383 comments (clear)

  1. Three words for Canadian CD-R/RW buyers by FuzzyBad-Mofo · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Class. Action. Lawsuit.

    1. Re:Three words for Canadian CD-R/RW buyers by RalphBNumbers · · Score: 4, Insightful

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

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

      --
      "The worst tyrannies were the ones where a governance required its own logic on every embedded node." - Vernor Vinge
    2. Re:Three words for Canadian CD-R/RW buyers by Zork+the+Almighty · · Score: 4, Insightful

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

      --

      In Soviet America the banks rob you!
    3. Re:Three words for Canadian CD-R/RW buyers by FuzzyBad-Mofo · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

    4. Re:Three words for Canadian CD-R/RW buyers by Canadian_Daemon · · Score: 3, Insightful

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

      --
      This sig is definitive. Reality is frequently inaccurate.
  2. yes.... by xao+gypsie · · Score: 4, Insightful

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

    xao

    --


    xao
    http://TheHillforum.hopto.org
    1. Re:yes.... by mini+me · · Score: 3, Funny

      The problem is the radio. They play the same songs so often that there is no need to buy the CD.

      I remember years ago, you'd be hard pressed to catch even the hits you want to hear. Now turn on the radio and there it is, right for your listening pleasure. So why would I bother buying the CD? Why even bother downloading it?

    2. Re:yes.... by shark72 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "....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.

      --
      Sitting in my day care, the art is decopainted.
    3. Re:yes.... by CrowScape · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Actually it's probably more due to competition from the DVD arena. When I spend money on entertainment, it's in the form of a couple DVDs that I can pick up for 17-23 USD, a much better bang-for-my-buck than even $13.50 for CDs. And no, I don't download mp3s. My DVD collection has fast outpaced my CD collection, and I wouldn't compare DVDs to VHS, as I rarely touched that God-awful format. For Christmas I used to have people asking for CDs, but as my friends and relatives started aquiring DVD players, they also started replacing their CD requests with DVD requests.

      Of course, this is all anecdotal

      --
      common sense: noun
      What those who are ignorant of the subject matter think; usually wrong.
    4. Re:yes.... by MikeXpop · · Score: 5, Insightful
      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.)
      --
      Etiquette is etiquette. He kills his mother but he can't wear grey trousers.
    5. Re:yes.... by dadragon · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

      --
      God save our Queen, and Heaven bless The Maple Leaf Forever!
    6. Re:yes.... by mini+me · · Score: 5, Funny

      Impossible. They play it so often that by the time they quit playing it, you never want to hear it again.

    7. Re:yes.... by Saeger · · Score: 5, Insightful
      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.

      --

      --
      Power to the Peaceful
    8. Re:yes.... by zephyr1256 · · Score: 3, Insightful
      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

    9. Re:yes.... by thales · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

      --
      Quemadmodum gladius neminem occidit, occidentis telum est
  3. Hmm... by EvilSporkMan · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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...

    --
    -insert a witty something-
    1. Re:Hmm... by Geek+of+Tech · · Score: 5, Funny
      >> Pretty much all pop distributed in the states is distributed here too.

      I'm sorry. I didn't know you had it that bad up there.

      --
      Stop the Slashdot effect! Don't read the articles!
    2. Re:Hmm... by RobinH · · Score: 4, Funny

      >> Pretty much all pop distributed in the states is distributed here too.

      I'm sorry. I didn't know you had it that bad up there.

      It's gotten better since you took Celine Dion off our hands... can't thank you enough for that one!

      --
      "I have never let my schooling interfere with my education." - Mark Twain
  4. That's it, I'm moving to Canada! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Er, wait, they are doing something I *don't* like this time? That's hardly fair.

    1. Re:That's it, I'm moving to Canada! by Seek_1 · · Score: 3, Funny

      Well you could just come to Canada and be a leech. That's still perfectly legal.

  5. it makes little difference by toddhunter · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Without the uploaders, you will be hard pressed to find downloaders anyway.
    What about this though, someone creates a virus that intentionally leaves a limited back-door into your system. This lets anyone log on, look at media files on your computer and download them.
    Then you never made your files available for sharing, the downloader is liable for breaking into your computer, but it just happens that you don't want to lay any charges.
    If only there was a way to get a virus onto a windows computer without people being seen to knowingly install it...

    1. Re:it makes little difference by gl4ss · · Score: 4, Insightful

      ..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.).

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
  6. live with dust or 'on the edge' !! by velkr0 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Are they hoping that they can scare me into buying music again. I used to buy cd's all the time, and i currently own over 330. But, buying cd's is simply a pain, since i lose them, they get punked and of course they collect dust on my cd rack...

    MP3's on my iPod always stay nice and shiny, and follow me everywhere i go!!

    Canada needs iTMS soon, because i still have a bit of cash in my budget for my favourite tunes!

  7. Quick Primer by SirSlud · · Score: 5, Informative

    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"
    1. Re:Quick Primer by debrain · · Score: 4, Informative

      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.

      The levy price did not go up; the actual prices stayed the same. You can read about it here

      MP3 player's are now being taxed, which is new. The gist of the protection is that you may fundamentally circumvent copyright if you give away the original, and you are permitted to keep copies, from my understanding. So you may make a copy of a CD, keep the copy, and give away the original CD, and not have violated the rights of the copyright holder.

      The essence of this, distinguished from "real" copyright violations, is that you can only give away the original once, and so you cannot mass produce the effect of that lost copyright. Or so my understanding goes ...

    2. Re:Quick Primer by atommoore · · Score: 5, Informative

      I believe you interpreted the ruling perfectly.

      "On March 19, 1998, Part VIII of the (Canadian) Copyright Act dealing with private copying came into force. Until that time, copying any sound recording for almost any purpose infringed copyright, although, in practice, the prohibition was largely unenforceable. The amendment to the Act legalized copying of sound recordings of musical works onto audio recording media for the private use of the person who makes the copy (referred to as "private copying"). In addition, the amendment made provision for the imposition of a levy on blank audio recording media to compensate authors, performers and makers who own copyright in eligible sound recordings being copied for private use."

      -- Copyright Board of Canada: Fact Sheet: Private Copying 1999-2000 Decision

      Seems like sealand will be the one place to upload anything sooner or later.

      --
      You are not your blog
  8. Stay out of trouble by downloading legal music by MichaelCrawford · · Score: 5, Interesting
    From Links to Tens of Thousands of Legal Music Downloads:

    You don't need to worry about getting sued by the Recording Industry Assocation of America or arrested by the FBI if you download legal music. Many independent and unsigned musicians offer downloads of their music in hopes of attracting more fans. Here's some music from my friends The Divine Maggees, Oliver Brown and Rick Walker's Loop.pooL.

    If everyone started downloading legal music instead of violating copyright with the file sharing programs, we would make short work of the RIAA, because people would start buying CDs directly from the artists and seeing their shows instead of enriching the major labels by buying CDs from the bands the labels have chosen for us to listen to. The RIAA would also have no cause to complain - these music downloads do not infringe copyright because the artists give you permission to download them.

    Besides giving you lots of links to legal downloads, the article goes on to discuss how you can change the law to make p2p filesharing of proprietary files legal. I think that could happen if I could get all sixty million US file traders to read the article in time for the November 2004 elections. So far the article is getting read by about 500 people a day, but it needs to be read a couple of orders of magnitude more often between now and November if it's going to effect the election. Please read What You Can Do To Help.

    Please copy and distribute this article. It has a Creative Commons license.

    --
    Request your free CD of my piano music.
  9. A new legal P2P Music Sharing system for Canada? by Vic+Metcalfe · · Score: 4, Interesting

    If I wrote a program that allowed users to put a CD into their CD-ROM drive and allow other users to rip a copy of that CD over the Internet, would that be legal? It looks to me like it might be.

    I'm very very tempted to write such a program. We pay the levy anyway, might as well take full advantage of it. I just don't want to loose my house, business, etc when I get sued.

  10. Should taxpayers pay for this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    When my car is stolen, when my house is broken into the police says "sorry, no resources" to catch them...
    Should taxpayers really pay police, FBI, etc. for playing collection agent for the RIA?

  11. Recording Industry vs. World - round 2. Ready, ste by grmb1 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    BTW, in Russia downloading music is too expensive. Average home broadband bandwidth is around 0.1$/MB. However pirated CDs full of MP3s cost about 2$ and are on sale everywhere - flea market, regular shops (govt. doesn't give a fuck). The choice of MP3s is amazing - rarities, bootlegs, full discographies, etc....

    So, USA people, welcome to Russia!

    Hmm...could be a good idea for business... "Fuck RIAA, buy our exclusive 'Russia CD-Tour'.".

    --
    -- grmbl woz heer
  12. Fair enough... by rokzy · · Score: 5, Interesting

    ...IF THEY GET RID OF THE LEVY

    I thought the justification for the levy was to legitimise downloading mp3s? If they now want to get rid of that "service", where's the justification for the levy? Maybe they're trying to pull another scam like when CDs were new;

    1980s
    1. raise prices because of set-up costs
    2. forget to lower after making money back
    3. profit

    2000s
    1. raise prices because of mp3 traders
    2. forget to lower after putting traders in jail
    3. profit

    1. Re:Fair enough... by rokzy · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

  13. Re:Difficulty by psychogentoo · · Score: 5, Insightful
    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.

  14. Subpeonas by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  15. Entrapment? by NonaMyous · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The only way to determine if a file on an uploader's system contains copyrighted material or not is to download the file and examine it. There's no copying and therefore no copyright infringement until the file downloaded.

    How does the CRIA prove copyright infringement without having been responsible for causing the infringement in the first place?

  16. simple answers by dirk · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    --

    "Information wants to be expensive" - Stewart Brand, the same guy who said "Information wants to be free"
    1. Re:simple answers by NSash · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

    2. Re:simple answers by Saeger · · Score: 4, Insightful
      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

      --

      --
      Power to the Peaceful
  17. Xtal's Pissed Off Music Kiosk by xtal · · Score: 4, Interesting

    What's to stop me from setting up a kiosk on my property (or with the permission of a landowner) with a batch of CDs and a CDR. It's cheap enough to do this I might just do it to make a point. I don't think anyone would steal the physical CDs, but you could always jukebox them.

    Under the current law, so long as I do not make any money, it is legal for someone to come up to this Kiosk and make all the copies they want. If this bullshit continues without the CDR levy being dropped, and my lawyer agrees with my interpretation of the law - I might just do this.

    How is this any different than uploading a ripped version of the CD anyway?

    --
    ..don't panic
  18. We need new laws by oystur · · Score: 3, Interesting

    When a business is reduced to suing customers you know you've hit a dead end. The music industry needs to issue licenses to file sharers and if they won't then we need to change the law. There is power in numbers and Click the Vote is organizing a grassroots movement to achieve just that.

  19. So what about DVD sales and movie prices? by xtal · · Score: 4, Informative

    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
  20. It isn't the same as the US - thankfully by rcpitt · · Score: 4, Insightful
    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

    --
    Been there, done that, paid for the T-shirt
    and didn't get it