CRIA Falling Apart?

An anonymous reader writes "Apparently, the CRIA (Canadian Recording Industry Association) has been falling apart recently. The biggest blow occurred when 6 major Canadian independent labels quit which was followed by some problems with the Copyright Board. Of course, this is all happening after the whole Sam Bulte incident. The article explains what happened with plenty of links for specific information."

Comments

Artists just want to be heard

[Anonymous Coward]

Most artists just want to be heard.
Their music should be considered free advertising for their art form, and hope to get enough interest to then go on tour.
It saves them time running around town sticking flyers up on walls.
P2P networks provide the free distribution.
Artists win by selling concert tickets, putting on a great show so people want to come back, and sell t-shirts, posters.
They get 100% of the revenue and greedy corporate bastards have to go find a new job that actually creates products.
Why isn't the old school gone yet?

I actually agree with the CRIA on something..

[d_jedi]

They want to get rid of the private copying levy. Well, hell.. that's been a long time coming.. especially since they were the ones who pushed for it in the first place.

I agree with this sentiment, although for different reasons. Why the hell should I be paying a private (music) copying levy for a CD-R that I buy which will never contain any music?

If this means that Canadians lose the legal right to download music on P2P sites, I think this is a fair compromise. After all, most of the P2P sites are crap nowadays, anyway.. infected with bogus files by the RIAA surrogates and "traffic shaped" by our ISPs.

Some artists just want to be heard...

[MaestroSartori]

Because what you said it isn't true, at least not for all musicians. See, you have to separate the love of the art we have from our desirve to live a decent quality of life. Us musicians don't just want to make music for everyone's enjoyment, you see. Some of us want to eat as well!

Many musicians, especially big popular artists of course, want to sell music, and make their living from that. They don't consider their music to be advertising - they may rarely play a gig, they may never want to go on tour, but they may still love making music and want to be able to make a living from it.

Sadly, the people who mask their desire to download music for free from P2P networks claim they're doing it to "fight the man", destroy the evil record labels and so on. That's fine, as far as it goes, but it's an excuse and nothing more. It won't help people like me - I'm a solo musician who plays several instruments, but I'm not in a band. I can record stuff I could never play live. I've enjoyed gigging, but I don't think I'd like to tour really. But why shouldn't I make a living selling music?

If I wanted to sell my music, I'd like people to respect my wishes. If they don't, and I'm relying on making money from my music to live, then I'm fucked and I won't make as much more (if any) because I'll need a job to pay the rent. Which is why I've skipped trying to make a living from music, and instead I'm a games programmer who makes music in his spare time.

Re:Some artists just want to be heard...

[Jugalator]

In relation to my sig, the day I will fully respect musicians' preferences to earn money on their music will be the same day my rights to play my purchased music won't be stolen by a third party. I will give you peace and understanding if the feeling is mutual.

Re:Some artists just want to be heard...

[Anonymous Coward]

Just like Joe, Bob and 99.99% of the rest of the working public you deserve to get paid for the actual work that you do. In effect, we all work on comission - being a musician (or an actor, or writer, or key grip, or scene painter or a wardrobe specialist, etc) doesn't mean you deserve special treatment.

Yes, sure - the problem is defining what the value of the work is, and who pays for it!

The thing is that Joe's boss has told him up front, before hiring him, exactly what work he expects and exactly what the pay will be. Joe does the work, and he gets the pay. Similarly, Bob's clients tell him up front exactly what they want done, and he tells them how long he thinks it'll take and how much he expects to charge. Bob does the work, bills the clients, and gets paid.

See the common factor here? In both cases, the person doing the paying knew what in advance what work was going to be done, and knew in advance how much they were willing to pay for it; and in both cases, there was one client who was set up to pay all the money and receive all the benefit.

How is this supposed to work with art? Who is going to pay for the production of art, and how are they going to recoup their investment, except through the current system of copyrights? And if so, what does your proposal accomplish, except stifling creativity by removing the possibility of any art being profitable except where commissioned by big money?

Please explain your system in more detail, with particular reference to the ways in which it promotes creativity and ensures that artists are rewarded for producing popular works.

Re:Some artists just want to be heard...

[DrRobert]

A creation does have perpetual value. Whether that is monetary or not is another question. Personally I would be for very short copyright 25 years or so, analagous to patents on new drugs (16 years to make your money). In exchange for the shortened copyright, I would fully criminalize copyright violations so that they consitute theft (legally and not just morally) and are punishable by police action and not just civil action. That system would increase value to the copyright holder in that it would be more stictly enforced and increase value to the society in that the works would be widely available for public benefit sooner. The modifications to the law would also need to include provisions that intermediate agencies could not benefit without explicit contracts from the copyright holder, in other words no money should be collected except that going to the holder, minus some small fee for the collection, but that would need to be spelled out by contract.

Re:Some artists just want to be heard...

[shark72]

"If I repair your car today - no matter how good a job I do - you pay me once, and I get to eat today. If your car keeps running for another 20 years, you don't have to to keep giving me royalties because of what a great job I did. Hell, even a doctor only gets paid once for a life saving operation."

The basis here is that musicians, poets and authors are typically the three lowest-paying jobs. There's little or no job security. By comparison, it is relatively easy to make a steady income if you are a trained mechanic or doctor.

"However, if I make a hit album today, the RIAA, CRIA think that I should be allowed [or, more importantly, they should be allowed] to live off the proceeds of that record for the remainder of my natural life, as can my family for 50+ years after my death."

FYI, much of the long-term royalties that help pay the rent -- radio airplay, covers and the like -- are administered through ASCAP/BMI and the record companies see none of it.

"Why are creative people rewarded in perpetuity, when doctors don't?"

Because -- as covered above -- trying to make a living in the creative arts can be very, very tough. It is by no means a guarantee of riches, or even a living wage.

"Because creative people get to write legislation."

Are you sure about that? I've known several authors, poets and musicians in my lifetime, and none of them have been involved in writing legislation.

Are you also positive that the medical industry doesn't have an effect on legislation? The pharmaceutical industry alone (which has a lobbying group that's distinct from the the medical device lobby, the HMO lobby, and so on) spent $44MM in 2003 and 2004 just on state officials. If this contradicts your understanding that the medical profession does not have an effect on legislation, please let me know.

What I want to know is...

[StringBlade]

What needs to occur to cause major U.S. record labels to break away from the RIAA in the same fashion?

I can only see this as a Good Thing(TM), but it seems like the CRIA is a mere shadow of the RIAA in terms of power and influence over legislation and the industry itself.

Re:On behalf of Canadian Musicians...

[Pieroxy]

What is the Sam Bulte incident anyway? (Not trolling, I just don't know)

Nettwerk Records is awesome

[bloosqr]

I run a synth podcast show and because of legal reasons have had many contacts w/ labels (me contacting them for permission, not them busting me) and I can not emphasize how cool the nettwerk label is :

Check out their about page :

Nettwerk Music Group is Canada's leading privately owned record label and artist management company. Nettwerk is responsible for managing some of Canada's biggest artists like Sarah McLachlan, Avril Lavigne, Barenaked Ladies and many others. Nettwerk has several offices located around the world including offices in New York, Los Angeles and London; with our main office right next to Granville Island in Vancouver, B.C.


Litigation is destructive, it must stop .... as per Nettwerk copyrights, we have never sued anybody and all our music is open source to encourage fans to share it with others and help us promote our Artists. As per those Artists we manage on other labels (Majors), we take issue with those labels claiming that litigating our fans is in our interest, as it clearly is not.

Even the smaller indie labels have not taken a stand as strong as Nettwerk has. Nettwerk is indie, but they carry Sarah Maclachlan, Delerium, Avril Lavigne and bands of that size, so they aren't exactly small.