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."
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
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.
Us musicians don't just want to make music for everyone's enjoyment, you see. Some of us want to eat as well!
You fucking selfish asshole.
The battleground isn't about musicians "being able to make a living from it", but rather whether they can make a living from it in perpetuity.
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.
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.
Why are creative people rewarded in perpetuity, when doctors don't?
Because creative people get to write legislation.
Athletic Scholarships to universities make as much sense as academic scholarships to sports teams.
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?
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.)