Slashdot Mirror
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."
The current situation is just that they want to distance themselves from the bad press of the moment, eh. In a year or so they'll be back and better than ever, the hosers.
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?
CRIA me a river.
Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
Now of course lobbying groups with lots of money get lots of stuff organized for themselves, but here it seems like all legislation concerning music-copyright is more or less directly taken over from the record companies. That's like taking all environmental legislation over from either greenpeace or chemical industry.
I think the biggest mistakes are from the government of giving so much one-sided power to industry instead of being a representative of the people as they were actually chosen to be. Yeah, I know, reality is different, but it just still amazes me, maybe I'll get more desillusionized (reality-numbed) as I grow older.
molmod.com - computing tips from a molecular modeling
The current situation is just that they want to distance themselves from the bad press of the moment, eh. In a year or so they'll be back and better than ever, the hosers.
... and those artists tend to be in *favour* of downloads as it increases their exposure.
Probably not, actually. The labels that left, although they do have a few well-known acts, generally have small, relativly unknown artists in their stables
They're simply doing what's best for their business, not what's best for Sony.
Will you take them seriously now that you know IFPI stands for "International Federation of the Phonograph Industry"? It's an appropriately anachronistic name for an organisation determined to block progress in music distribution.
"I've got more toys than Teruhisa Kitahara."
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.
Game dev and music blog
not today. Today copyright is how businesses steal 'ownership' from artists.
bullsh*t. Copyright puts culture under the lock and key of a corporation for their own profit, not for the protection of the culture. There's plenty of culture that is currently unavailable to us because the 'owner' doesn't see a profit. how exactly is that 'protecting' it in any good way?
right. that's why when an artist is signed to a label who owns them and their work they always remain true to their roots and never produce works as they are told to. sure.
Firstly, there is absolutely no evidence that without copyright 'great works' would not be created, in fact shakespear worked without the benefit of copyright, and has arguably created some of the greatest works of all time. Secondly; talented, creative people can no more not-create than they can not-breathe. It's in their blood. It consumes them. It drives them. They require no outside incentive.
And if it's all about incentive, how does retroactively extending copyright (Sonny Bono Copyright act) increase their incentive? It's already made! no further 'incentive' is necessary... Clearly it's about money, not creativity.
There's two possibilities here: Either copyright has created the correct number of jobs (i.e. the same as without) or copyright has created an innefficient system where the consumer is paying too much (in order to pay for the bloat, i.e. the *extra* jobs created)
If it's the first case, than copyright has done nothing, and is irrelevent. If it's the second, than we have done ourselves and economic disservice...
Proof please.
Again, there is absolutely no evidence that copyright has in any way increased the quantity of artisitic creativity anywhere. What there is, is proof that creativity happens without copyright, and there is proof that copyright generates monopoly profits for corporations who become larger and more powerful and demand tighter copyright controls for their own profits.
I'm going to postulate that the real reason that there is more recorded art today is for a few other reasons:
I would argue that the creative work that will have the most impact on society this century will have been created largely by people who will never be monetarily compensated, will be consumed by people who will never even say thanks, and yet will continue to evolve, to be worked on and yes to be monetized. That creative work is known as GNU/Linux, but comprises a larger scope of work that can also be called Open Source, or Free Software.
So all we really do get
If you think imaginary property and real property are the same, when does your house become public domain?
from what I can gather from the "InterWeb"
o ntent&task=view&id=1058&Itemid=89&nsubp _loses_.html
http://www.lpco.ca/sambulte/about.aspx
http://www.michaelgeist.ca/index.php?option=com_c
http://www.boingboing.net/2006/01/23/hollywoods_m
she is a former MP for the liberals who got lots of funding from the hollywood, and was in favour of stronger copy right.
she lost her bid for re-election.
--meh--
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 :
.... 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.
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
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.
Trust me, there really is some good in this world. Nettwerk has been one of the most critical labels of heavy-handed legal tactics. They're funding some RIAA defences, they were one of the first to leave the CIRA, and they aren't just a stable of artists that no one has heard of; Sarah McLachlan, Barenaked Ladies, Avril Lavigne.
And they sell mp3s on their site. Not WMAs, not ACCs -- *mp3s*, no DRM.
I'm a cynical bastard, too, but there's actually a few labels out there that get it. Don't sell them short.
Running Windows^H^H^H^H^H^H^H OSX and Linux in the home. (I don't have time for Solitaire any more.)
Copyright, as the money-making machine it is today, did not exist in Mozart's time (at least not in Europe-- the modern conception of copyright stems from UK law). Copyright may have existed informally, but unless I'm mistaken, it was not a part of law. Despite that Mozart make quite a good living from his music. Additionally, it was quite common-- and acceptable-- to compose "variations" on another composer's work. This practice is briefly mentioned in the quasi-fictional movie, Amadeus. But derivative works, though still technically permissible, are not often undertaken due to a threat of lawsuit and, from what I gather, not smiled upon by courts.
But using Mozart's case to support an argument about modern times is pointless anyhow-- in the 18th century, you're talking about sheet music and a vast underclass that has little interest in copying it. Today, we have a huge population with disposible incomes and high-quality recordings that can be distributed at virtually no cost. The dynamics are quite different.