CRIA Files Massive Canadian Suit Against IsoHunt

An anonymous reader writes "After claiming for years that Canada has lax copyright laws that can't deal with downloading, 26 record labels have secretly filed a massive lawsuit against isoHunt. The suit was filed three weeks before Canada introduced the Canadian DMCA, yet the industry did not disclose the suit and regularly claimed it was powerless to do anything about the site."

Comments

Aaaah. unbridled capitalism.

[unity100]

you can lie, you can deceive, you can screw customers, you can fraud, you can scam, but still in the end you can come up right, because they are allowed in the system - you just need to arrange your ToSes, legal clauses properly, and have a good legal team that the unwashed masses wont be able to buy.

Re:Aaaah. unbridled capitalism.

[monkyyy]

i think that would be under "you can screw customers" with a hint of "you can deceive"

Re:Aaaah. unbridled capitalism.

[Anonymous Coward]

Not very bright are you? Or the most obvious troll I have seen in a while.

This isn't like them going against Napster or anything like that, ISOHunt actually changed their site where you can't sort by type or anything like that anymore.

It infringes no more than Bing or Google now as all it does is catalog and search torrent files by name, leechers and seeders. It doesn't host or pick and choose them. I hope you never have to work on any jury or some innocent man is going to end up frying due to your ignorance.

Re:Aaaah. unbridled capitalism.

[Anonymous Coward]

Piracy and violating the terms of a license are two different things. Do try to keep up.

Re:Aaaah. unbridled capitalism.

[Anonymous Coward]

Uh, no they aren't, not in this case.

Piracy.is infringing copyright by distributing copies or derivatives of a work without permission.
A GPL violation.is infringing copyright by distributing a derived work (object code) without permission (because permission is granted only by the GPL, and only if you comply with its terms).

That's where the GPL differs from a EULA (and why a thousand windows installers for GPL software are doing it wrong, by forcing an agree-click to install) -- a EULA imposes restrictions if you agree to it, while the GPL allows privileges if you agree to it. As result, there's no "oh, but I didn't sign a license agreement, I/my kid/a stray cat/a very small perl script clicked the only button that moves forward, regardless of what it was labeled" dodge with the GPL -- end users get the same rights (to use it) whether or not they agree, and would-be copiers are even more restricted (all rights reserved, like everything else) if they don't agree.

Re:Aaaah. unbridled capitalism.

[unity100]

yes yes. EVERY kind of thing that corporations or 'rights holders' do, have an excuse, a justification, and rationalization.

the one who is not being rather bright is not me, but the one who had missed that the post he replied to, addresses that very fact - that there being a rationalization, justification for something, does not excuse that action.

Re:Aaaah. unbridled capitalism.

[unity100]

yes. people like me are the ones who have raped mexico gulf, amazon forest, frauded countries .... indeed we are truly deserving of death. not the morons who keep going at the same hand that feeds them make believe ...

Re:Aaaah. unbridled capitalism.

[h00manist]

you can lie, you can deceive, you can screw customers, you can fraud, you can scam, but still in the end you can come up right, because they are allowed in the system - you just need to arrange your ToSes, legal clauses properly, and have a good legal team that the unwashed masses wont be able to buy.

Yes. And members of these unwashed masses who can see the origins of the problem have a responsibility to propose workarounds to their instruments of monopoly. There are many in my view, they all just require organization by lots of people.

Re:Aaaah. unbridled capitalism.

[Anonymous Coward]

I believe you will find piracy is plundering booty on the high sea.

Re:Aaaah. unbridled capitalism.

[Pax681]

LOOK they should sue google! all you do is type the following "filetype torrent tron" and it'll go a torrent searching.....

so why don't they sue google? coz google probably has better lawyers than they do and certainly has better lawyers than isohunt

Re:Aaaah. unbridled capitalism.

[HungryHobo]

I think you may not understand the slashdot modderation system.
change your view so that you can see -1 comments and you'll realise that the person you're responding to wasn't talking about your post but rather one between yours and his.

Re:Aaaah. unbridled capitalism.

[Anonymous Coward]

ahhh unbridled piracy

You can justify it with some hand wavy stallmanesque bullshit, brag about being anonymous, pretend its some sort of 'stick it to the man' crud, but at the end of the day, we know it's just arrogant tight assed self righteous pricks who expect everyone else to subsidise their entertianment.

grow up you fucking moron

Re:Aaaah. unbridled capitalism.

[rikkards]

Really? I just did a search and was able to sort by type? You in the US, I think it is different there. We up north still have the ability to use the dropdown.

Re:Aaaah. unbridled capitalism.

[Anonymous Coward]

Piracy has meant copyright infringement in context, in the English language for about 400 years. Do try to keep up.

Re:Aaaah. unbridled capitalism.

[Elbereth]

I think you're the only person on Slashdot who understood my point, though I may have worded it a bit too trollishly (out of force of habit, I suppose).

Re:Aaaah. unbridled capitalism.

[commodore6502]

>>>Piracy.is infringing copyright by distributing copies or derivatives of a work without permission.

Let me see if I care.
(ponder)
Nope. As long as producers refuse to let me return shit like Transformers 2, Day the Earth Stood Still, Avatar, and so on, then I feel I have a right to Take action to not waste my money (i.e. to try before I buy). Every other industry in the world provides a return policy - why should music/movie makers be any different? (And don't bring-up reviews, which are bought-and-paid for by those same companies and therefore reviews are worthless.)

- "Grants of this sort can be justified in very peculiar cases only, if at all; the danger being very great that the good resulting from the operation of the monopoly, will be overbalanced by that the monopoly itself, in its original operation, may produce more evil than good [i.e. RIAA and MPAA]." - James Madison, author of the US Constitution.

"If Nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an idea, which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps it to himself; but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the possession of every one, and the receiver cannot dispossess himself of it. Its peculiar character, too, is that no one possesses the less, because every other possesses the whole of it.

"He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. That ideas should freely spread from one to another over the globe, for the moral and mutual instruction of man, and improvement of his condition, seems to have been peculiarly and benevolently designed by nature, when she made them, like fire, expansible over all space, without lessening their density in any point, and like the air in which we breathe, move, and have our physical being, incapable of confinement or exclusive appropriation. Inventions then cannot, in Natural Right, be a subject of property." - Thomas Jefferson, 1780s

Re:Aaaah. unbridled capitalism.

[c6gunner]

you can lie, you can deceive, you can screw customers, you can fraud, you can scam, but still in the end you can come up right, because they are allowed in the system - you just need to arrange your ToSes, legal clauses properly, and have a good legal team that the unwashed masses wont be able to buy.

Well, of course. As long as customers are willing to put up with your antics, why WOULDN'T you do such things?

The problem isn't capitalism; the problem is consumerism. People can bleat about the Big Bad Companies all they want, but as long as you keep buying those Miley Cyrus CD's and that Titanic Super Extreme Directors Cut Blueray Collectors Edition With 23 Bonus Seconds of DeCaprio Drowning, you ARE the problem.

Re:Aaaah. unbridled capitalism.

[blahplusplus]

"Yes. And members of these unwashed masses who can see the origins of the problem have a responsibility to propose workarounds to their instruments of monopoly. There are many in my view, they all just require organization by lots of people."

Problem is too many people are ignorant / apathetic, I always see people defending corporations and corporations rights over peoples, it's pretty disturbing how easily brainwashed people are.

Re:Aaaah. unbridled capitalism.

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, I think I've downloaded that torrent too!!

Re:Aaaah. unbridled capitalism.

[shentino]

In other words, the GPL conditionally permits actions that would otherwise be illegal.

Re:Aaaah. unbridled capitalism.

[camperdave]

If the torrent file were the copyrighted material, it might make sense. If IsoHunt were hosting the copyrighted material, it might make sense. A torrent file is basically a list of where you can get the copyrighted material. IsoHunt isn't even producing the torrent files. Suppose a restaurant chain started making and selling Big Macs. Suing a torrent site is like McDonalds trying to shut down that restaurant chain by going to a car rental place and taking all their "restaurants in the area" maps.

Re:Aaaah. unbridled capitalism.

[gstoddart]

Nope. As long as producers refuse to let me return shit like Transformers 2, Day the Earth Stood Still, Avatar, and so on, then I feel I have a right to Take action to not waste my money (i.e. to try before I buy). Every other industry in the world provides a return policy - why should music/movie makers be any different?

Well, like it or not, the belief is that with software (which is what they class the movies as) -- if you take it home, you could copy it. Then you return the item, and you now have your digital copy, but have been refunded the purchase price.

From the perspective of the people who sell these things, it's impossible to tell the difference between something that didn't work, and something which was pirated. Unfortunately, once it was classed as "software", and therefore something which it was presumed you could copy, they stopped treating it like a physical good -- I can't make a copy of a TV and then return the original.

I'm not saying I totally agree, but I can at least see the line of reasoning as to why software/games/movies are in a slightly odd category and aren't treated like a physical object -- because they aren't, really. (Now, something like an old Nintendo cartridge I would argue isn't "software".)

And, really, if you want a "try before you buy" model, then either see the movie in a theater or rent the damned thing. You still have that option available to you.

Re:Aaaah. unbridled capitalism.

[The Archon V2.0]

Unfortunately, once it was classed as "software", and therefore something which it was presumed you could copy, they stopped treating it like a physical good -- I can't make a copy of a TV and then return the original.

And yet people selling a nonphysical product keep beating us over the head with the metaphor of "You wouldn't shoplift the disk, pirating is the exact same thing."

Re:Aaaah. unbridled capitalism.

[Anonymous Coward]

Political corruption is a problem created by the willingness of politicians to be corrupt, not one of capitalism. Every economic system will have corruption as long as politicians have power of legislation.

Re:Aaaah. unbridled capitalism.

[gstoddart]

And yet people selling a nonphysical product keep beating us over the head with the metaphor of "You wouldn't shoplift the disk, pirating is the exact same thing."

*shrug* Not defending it, merely explaining it.

And, yes, at the retail level, they want to sell it as a physical good but then have it become shrink-wrapped software that can't be returned because it may have already been copied. Same applies for any 'software'.

As has been pointed out many times, you'd get in far less trouble for stealing a couple of hundred DVDs from a store than you would for having the equivalent files in a shared folder.

Sadly, the copyright interests have more or less won the war in terms of getting laws stacked to their side and screwing over the consumer. Hopefully we can see some sanity at some point, but I'm not holding my breath -- ACTA has pretty much enshrined that they have rights established by international treaty, and the rest of us can go fsck ourselves.

Re:Aaaah. unbridled capitalism.

[vegiVamp]

Hey, 23 more seconds of DiCaprio drowning is worth something, mate.

Re:Aaaah. unbridled capitalism.

[h00manist]

Problem is too many people are ignorant / apathetic, I always see people defending corporations and corporations rights over peoples, it's pretty disturbing how easily brainwashed people are.

It is hard but possible to find people who are honest, kind, bright, and strong. But you have to look hard for them. Propose a concrete activity, any one, and invite people to participate. I propose we setup another wikileaks mirror.

Re:Aaaah. unbridled capitalism.

[Journe]

So, if a guy robs a bank, he gets arrested.
If a man downloads a copyrighted film illegally, he gets arrested.

Now, if it just so happened that you were the one who gave the guy the key to the vault he robbed or something, wouldn't you expect to be arrested too? Same thing here. IANAL, but this would probably be covered under aiding and abetting...

Pro-piracy, FYI. Just saying that it doesn't make any sense that you can give them the "key" to the illegal item and then not face any legal trouble for doing so.

Re:Aaaah. unbridled capitalism.

[Anonymous Coward]

Titanic is not yet available on Blu-ray.

Ugh...

[andreyvul]

This shit again?

Seriously, if downloading was hurting the labels as much as their FUD machine states, then I'd find a way to pay for a T3 line and use it solely for seedboxing purposes.

Because I will get a huge smile on my face once this scourge goes broke, fucks off, and dies, preferably in burning cyanide.

Re:Ugh...

[h00manist]

This shit again?

Seriously, if downloading was hurting the labels as much as their FUD machine states, then I'd find a way to pay for a T3 line and use it solely for seedboxing purposes.

Because I will get a huge smile on my face once this scourge goes broke, fucks off, and dies, preferably in burning cyanide.

Hmm. That would become more likely if the paths leading to purchase of their stuff was littered with signs pointing out how to get the same things for zero.

Re:Ugh...

[erroneus]

It hurts their future plans.

Look. When all this really started happening, the publishers insisted that they had no plan, intention or desire to do anything over the internet. The rest of the world said "fine... we will." and the consumers around the world started to consume. The publishers took notice. They didn't see "loss" because there never was any. What they saw was "people publishing with little to no overhead."

THIS is what the publishers want -- the market for media and content published on the internet. It's cheap to publish and they want to control it. Trouble is, the genie is already out of the bottle and they are trying to stuff it back in with law suits. Funny thing is, they turned a fringe activity into a mainstream one with their law suits against P2P sharing software makers. Suddenly, a market was made famous by legal actions and the mainstream took notice. Before the Napster and other suits, P2P sharing was more of a fringe activity. Now it's a huge part of the usage of the internet. (was that an eventuality or was the streissand effect at play?)

So yes, it hurts the content publishers in the future sense. It does not hurt them in the present sense. They have great difficulty "proving" they are hurt in the present sense and it is impossible to prove they are being hurt in the future sense. They want to control publishing on the internet and everything they have done so far seems to indicate that desire. Being able to accomplish that goal seems, at the moment, pretty impossible. But they are continuing to buy laws and politicians and making our lives a LOT more difficult and unpleasant in the process.

Re:Ugh...

[peragrin]

what future plans?

both the *AA's don't have future plans they just keep on using the same old thing and never doing anything new.

If the RIAA had embraced Napster or at least MP3's selling singles in 1999 then the single music download piece wouldn't have happened as badly.

instead they waited half a decade, and lost a whole generation because of their stupid games.

Re:Ugh...

[tbannist]

Oh, the *AA's have future plans... They just all involve busty hookers, cocaine, and rolling around on large piles of money.

Re:Ugh...

[Anrego]

It really doesn't seem like they have future plans at all.

What they want is to keep people on physical media. Rather than innovate and give the people what they want... they call out the lawyers and lobbyists and try to sue people into submission.

Here in Canada, there really is no sane way to legally download. This is mostly the fault of the CRTC/CBC, but essentially if it's a show you've heard of, you probably won't find it available in Canada for legal download. You have people like me, who WANT TO BUY STUFF that we can EASILY GET FOR FREE... and we have no way to do it! The stupidity of this actually makes me angry.

Re:Ugh...

[hesaigo999ca]

I know, because these same companies that say are hurting, are declaring that harry potter 6 had to go bankrupt....600 million dollars they owed and now do not, creative accounting, they use a dummy company hp6 to get all the expenses, then declare loses on the movie, which we all know made 700 million, so how does this work? paramount charges the hp6 company for everything from toilet paper to renting sets to renting movie cameras etc...and drive the prices sky high so that the company is hopelessly broke, and then files for chapter 11...all the while making their money and interest on that money.....when they say that piracy is rampant....

Seriously, if I was able to not watch another movie, I would do so to boycott hollywood...but alas, I need my fix.

Re:Ugh...

[kent_eh]

The publishers took notice. They didn't see "loss" because there never was any. What they saw was "people publishing with little to no overhead."

Not quite.
What they saw was themselves not profiting from every single transaction and they started to panic.

Re:Ugh...

[digitalaudiorock]

I often wonder if a) they actually believe their own FUD or, b) their real motivation (and most likely the motivation of the movie and publishing industries) is to eventually create a situation where nobody ever "owns" anything, but rather rents/buys it multiple times. Either way, it's amazing how many industries are climbing over each other to follow the record industry down the DRM toilet.

Re:Ugh...

[Anonymous Coward]

A fast ethernet (100Mbit/s) connection at a data centre is faster than a T3. All you need is some kind of VPS (virtual private server) package, and they'll usually include it.

Re:Ugh...

[erroneus]

Agreed. That would be more accurate.

Re:Ugh...

[failedlogic]

Care to elaborate? There is iTunes for example and Net-Flix.

Where I would agree with you is that it is increasingly difficult to buy CDs retail. The large chains - HMV, FutureShop, Best Buy have dramatically cut back on their existing stock. Sam the Record Man which arguably had the best selection is out of business. There's a few Indie stores but they sell music that *I* do not like.

Re:Ugh...

[Anrego]

Have you actually looked at their library?

Seriously.. think of something you want to watch.. plug it in to netflix canada search..

You might get lucky... but so far at _least_ 90% of the time I get "this title is not available, but here are 3 suggestions you've never heard of that we can provide you".

It even extends fo documentaries. Discovery had a nice series called "breaking vegas" (not the documentary on the MIT blackjack team.. but a series that kind of followed in the same light). It's there... but not available in Canada. That's the type of stuff I'd pay for on a whim. Something the other day made me remember that series.. and I thought "hey.. I wouldn't mind seeing that again..". Completely willing to pay for it. Money in my pocket (so to speak).. theirs for the taking. NOPE!!.. don't want it!!! But please stop downloading stuff cause it's costing us money!!!

Re:Ugh...

[Anrego]

Kinda thought they've been doing that for a while .. seriously.. that's actually the image I get.. and I suspect it's not too far from the truth in a lot of cases.

Re:Ugh...

[failedlogic]

Ok that's what you mean. That's cool. I don't use NetFlix (I would but I'm on a really low cap connection right now, renting a place). I know what you mean now and share the same sentiment.

Though I can't relate with Netflix, this is a common problem with Cable/Satellite TV options, because there is one channel I really, really, want to get but CRTC regs are blocking the channel. So there's a channel in Canada that offers it but they are like 4 seasons behind. If you want to legally get it asap, you can always buy the DVDs in the store. So yeah, my sentiment isn't towards Netflix but I know exactly what you mean.

Re:Ugh...

[CoderJoe]

I want the content to be released on physical media. Sure, I may then transfer the content to a more convenient form for my consumption, but I still want the original physical, (preferably) lossless copy. That way I can buy it and not be left at the mercy of a company that may not be around in 10, 20, 30, 50 years when I want to watch, listen to, or share some old piece of culture. If it is kept "in the cloud" on their servers, I can't be sure I can get to it then. The company may no longer be around in order to supply the content upon request.

Ignore for a moment the print/electronic differences between a print book and an ebook. If I were to buy a print copy of Nineteen Eighty-Four from Amazon, they cannot come into my house in the middle of the night and remove it from my collection. However, they can (and have) done the same with their ebook system.

Additionally, with Redbook audio CDs, the audio is in PCM, rather than MP3 or AAC. If another new CODEC comes down the road, I can re-encode my CDs (which I may have also ripped to a lossless CODEC such as FLAC) into that new CODEC without generational loss. DVD and Bluray aren't quite as good in that regard, but the amount of space needed for a lossless version of those would be far too large, so I forgive that. Not that this matters to the content producers. They would prefer you re-buy stuff with every format change. What they really would like is a leak-proof pipe from their source to your eyeball or eardrum, and charge you every time you watch or listen to the content.

Re:Ugh...

[Anrego]

I agree with the sentiment regarding not having the stuff you bought "in the cloud". I wouldn't go as far as saying I want to buy physical media.. but I want an actual (DRM free) file. The netflix concept I don't mind.. because you pay a pretty reasonable monthly fee for access to their entire catalog.. rather than specifically buying movies. If I specifically pay for something though.. I want it in my control forever.

The problem with physical media is the speed at which you go from "hey, I'd like to see that" to actually watching it. I'm a very impulsive person, and I watch a lot of movies/tv shows/documentaries. Give me the ability to pay some money and be watching it within 5 minutes (streaming) or an hour .. and you'll make money. This to me is what the internet _should_ mean to entertainment. This is where they could be making money hand over fist if they'd just for once in the history of big media actually go with innovation rather than fighting it.

But didn't they say our copyright laws are weak?

[SkepticalJ]

From http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/5636/135/: "The lawsuit may come as a surprise to politicians and other observers accustomed to hearing that Canada does not have the legal tools to address online infringement, yet that perception has always been more myth than reality. As the isoHunt lawsuit demonstrates, the legal power to combat online infringement has existed within Canadian copyright law for years. It has been the industry’s reluctance to wield those powers – not their absence – that may have allowed infringing websites to call Canada home."

One day, sooner than we all think...

[Anonymous Coward]

One day, sooner than we all think, we will all be able to download every single piece of digitizable human culture ever created in under an hr. It will fit on an external hardrive easily purchased for 16hrs of minimum wage labour. The marginal cost of distribution is rapidly approaching zero.

What lies beneath the event horizon of a black hole? Decent people shouldn't think to much about that.

Re:One day, sooner than we all think...

[monkyyy]

no, content and culture are both growing quickly as well and at higher quality, while it will happen, its not soon

Re:One day, sooner than we all think...

[SuperKendall]

Sorry to break it to you pal but media is getting larger while bandwidth to home stagnates. The reality is that bandwidth costs money, costs go down over time but slower than media sizes increase.

Re:One day, sooner than we all think...

[Maxo-Texas]

This changed as of netflix.

I went from 38up / 300 down to 280 up / 980 down without any change in cost.

Things come down instantly now.

Big service in Texas. Don't really want to advertise for them tho.

Re:One day, sooner than we all think...

[dryeo]

Yea, netflix changed things in Canada too. Very low limits introduced, 3GBs IIRC with a $2 charge per GB for going over.
With an election approaching the government overrode the new rules but I'm sure they'll revert once the election is over.

Re:One day, sooner than we all think...

[Vanderhoth]

For sure content is growing quickly.

As for culture, Every time I see an ad for Justin Bieber I wonder.

Re:One day, sooner than we all think...

[Anonymous Coward]

Nice quote from a great game! Thanks for making me smile in the middle of the workday.

Re:One day, sooner than we all think...

[Anonymous Coward]

we will all be able to download every single piece of digitizable human culture ever created in under an hr.

And subsequently go to jail for eternity minus one day, given current laws.

Re:One day, sooner than we all think...

[monkyyy]

i was refering to more internet related stuff
memes are increasing like crazy and very few die out

the meme boommers?

Re:One day, sooner than we all think...

[calmofthestorm]

No longer mere earthbeings and planetbeings are we, but bright children of the stars! And together we shall dance in and out of ten billion years, celebrating the gift of consciousness until the stars themselves grow cold and weary, and our thoughts turn again to the beginning.

Let them win!!!

[future assassin]

Since isoHut is just a search engine any win for the record labels would royally fuck search engine usage in Canada. Just like with UBB consumer rage will follow, which really sucks that it has to come to that in order for joe average to notice they are getting a Shaftner.

Re:Let them win!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

Agreed, lets let UBB, Bill C-32, and this lawsuit go forward. Our universities can then go back to teaching us how to make candles, hunt for pelts, farm, and push logs down rivers. So much for moving forward.

Re:Let them win!!!

[gman003]

Unfortunately, this isn't exactly the case. Sure, if isoHunt simply provided a searchable index of torrents, they should be able to claim ignorance of any wrongdoing, with the whole "safe harbor" argument, but there's a flaw in that: they did more. Several times when I visited, they had an "editor's pick" or something like that, which was invariably something pirated (and blatantly so), with a description that pretty much shouted "this file is illegal!". That's not just "refusing to take down pirated material", that goes into "actively distributing". You could probably get a conviction for conspiracy based on that.

Of course, if the Canadian MAFIIA is anything like the American one (word-of-mouth is that it's actually worse), I'd have to side with isoHunt simply out of spite.

Re:Let them win!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

Never give up a freedom. Make them take it from you. Look at the mess to the south, if you need an example. The better approach is to shove them as far down as possible, and let them decide if they want to stay, playing by our rules, after that.

Re:Let them win!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

I've just found another Torrent Search site in Canada
http://www.google.ca/cse/home?cx=003849996876419856805:erhhdbygrma
Will they be sued too ?

Re:Let them win!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem is they were not distributing. You keep saying that and others implying. They were linking to torrent files. Even hosting torrent files is not hosting pirated content. It is also not up to them to determine the legality of content. It is the poster. The editor did not post it. It is up to the copyright owner to point out what is unauthorised. That is the idea anyway. Contributory infringement can be argued. However if you understand how this work they were not infringing any copyright. At best they were encouraging people to infringe. However it has not been proven that they knew it was infringing. Until you have a report brought to you by the copyright owner you can't know if it was or was not infringing. Otherwise they would have to verify with the copyright office who the owner is and vet every single torret on the net. That is insane. Google does not have to vet sites for copyright. Only remove when they are notified of it. Even that is questionable. It has only gotten so far in the courts as to if linking is infringement. The closest we have is a Napster case. Maybe 2600 although that didn't get very high up in the courts. It could have been appealed and was not. If Google links to sites which infringe they are not liable. Merely linking to content is not infringement. Nobody clearly notified ISOHunt of any of the posted files.

Re:Let them win!!!

[mini me]

It is well known that Google will hand edit search results so that particular content comes first or otherwise make the result more prominent. Google has no more copyright claim to the websites it links to than IsoHunt does to the torrents it links to. If IsoHunt is breaking the law, Google most certainly is as well.

Re:Let them win!!!

[TheFakeMcCoy]

Yea old ISO hunt maybe that's somethign to go after.. new ISO hunt i dont even use anymore, and I almost bought one of their T-Shirts once

This...

[Barrinmw]

...is why I don't buy music.

Re:This...

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't even listen to music. I find I don't have the time. Surely I'm not alone.

Re:This...

[dryeo]

I buy it from the thrift store and occasionally garage sales. The Mennonites who run the local thrift store do good work and I don't mind supporting them.

Re:This...

[Anonymous Coward]

I get mine on stone tablets, from the Isrealites.

Re:This...

[Nerdfest]

I've switched to Jamendo and other such independent music sites. Completely free, and there's a lot of good music. You get the added bonus of searching for what you like yourself, rather than having what the record companies deem "popular" pushed at you all day.

Re:This...

[ginbot462]

I get mine on blotter paper from Lemurians.

wtf?

[mirix]

...weeks before Canada introduced the Canadian DMCA...

Christ, I leave the basement for a month and this is what happens? I thought someone else was watching out for this. They always told me girlfriends were dangerous.

Hmmm. I searched and it looks like it's just a bill. Nothing has passed?

Re:wtf?

[creativeHavoc]

Nothing passed, this is a third try. Bill C-32

Re:wtf?

[Anonymous Coward]

... doesn't mean it can't pass. I only found out about the bill AFTER the deadline for public input had already passed!
Part of me wonders if the current UBB stuff is being used deliberately as a smokescreen to take heat off the bill. :|

It will sink

[Anonymous Coward]

The suite doesn't look like multi million dollar lawsuite for a simply fact that it's not factually correct. It will sink, even if it will go on first appeal will bust it

Cheapskates

[Mathinker]

You missed the part in the discussion which points out that the probable reason why the labels didn't bring the suit previously was because they prefer that legislation make it much cheaper for them to enforce their copyrights. I wouldn't be surprised if the timing of this lawsuit is designed to maximize its nuisance value versus its legal expenses --- if the industry is convinced that the new bill will pass in the near future, maybe they are hoping they can cause a lot of legal expense for Isohunt in the near term, and then suddenly be able to "refile" because the the change in the legislative landscape after the passage of the bill.

A comment on the blog quoted an industry source:

I quote Danielle Parr, executive director of the Entertainment Software Association of Canada, who says exceptions to the protection of digital locks wonâ(TM)t work. "When you create a big hole in the law that people can drive through, the onus is suddenly placed right on the copyright creator to prove the infringement."

I had thought that the Canadian Supreme Court has already ruled that fair use is a right of the consumer, so how can this law be viable? Or does legislation always override previous judicial decisions in Canada?

<sigh/>When will the industry figure out that Whack-a-Mole isn't going to work?

Re:Cheapskates

[dryeo]

IIRC it was the Court of Appeals (second highest court) that ruled that sharing music was legal. The CRIA were scared to take it to the Supreme Court.
I believe in most countries the legislature can update the laws to work around judicial decisions, at least as long as it doesn't conflict with any existing bill of rights or in our case charter of rights and freedoms. Our charter of rights also has a lot of weasel wording, section 1, the reasonable limits clause (in practice the States have the same thing) and section 33, the not withstanding clause.
The notwithstanding clause allows the government (federal or provincial) to override any right or freedom for up to 5 years at a shot. Only seriously used for the Quebec Language sign law so far.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Charter_of_Rights_and_Freedoms
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_One_of_the_Canadian_Charter_of_Rights_and_Freedoms
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_Thirty-three_of_the_Canadian_Charter_of_Rights_and_Freedoms

Re:Cheapskates

[Spad]

...the onus is suddenly placed right on the copyright creator to prove the infringement.

Isn't that kind of how the law is supposed to work? You know, the guy making the accusation has to prove that the other person did it (to whatever standard is required by the court), otherwise you end up with things like the retarded libel system we have in the UK where you can accuse anyone you like of anything you want and if they can't prove that they're not guilty then you win, regardless of what evidence you have.

Re:Cheapskates

[rikkards]

And from what I recall the only reason they deemed music sharing legal was because of the CD Levy. I think if ISOHunt only provided music they would be ok but since they provide access to everything they could. Let me followup with the fact that technically Google is in the same boat but yet I doubt the CRIA will take them on.

Re:Cheapskates

[dryeo]

It seems to me that the Canadian courts have ruled that making available is not distribution. Which is probably the worst that ISOHunt is doing.

Re:Cheapskates

[Anonymous Coward]

They can refile, but the charter guarantees the more favourable (to the defendant) punishment be applied as long as it was in effect at the time the crime was committed -- 11 (i). So refiling won't get them access to the new draconian copyright bill, assuming it passes, unless isoHunt doesn't close up shop that day.

Re:Cheapskates

[Mathinker]

> Isn't that kind of how the law is supposed to work?

Yes, but in the case of copyright infringement by P2P distribution, it seems it is economically infeasible to prosecute infringers --- even if RIAA would actually get paid the several million dollar damages awards they've gotten up to now versus Tennenbaum and Thomas, they wouldn't break even (IIRC, given the financial info they've published, in one of the last recent years they lost something like $16M even including all of the people who folded immediately and paid several kilo-dollars each). And in many (most?) countries, exemplary damages for copyright infringement are explicitly forbidden (even in the US it is not clear that they are constitutional) so it'd be even harder to get back the legal expense or even get a decision with (in their eyes) good deterrent value.

Is it still run by a teenager?

[Anonymous Coward]

I remember reading about the teenage kid who ran this site years ago in a local Richmond BC paper years ago. I seem to remember he was being sued or being threated by law suits back then. Me and my non-tech friends thought that kid was awesome!

Scrap the CD-R levy then.

[QJimbo]

Greedy record companies can't have it both ways.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_copying_levy#Canada

Re:Scrap the CD-R levy then.

[AmonTheMetalhead]

They disagree with you. And Canada isn't the only country with that legal theft law, here in Belgium there is a levy on any media you buy that gets divided between the most successful artists.

The reasoning is that the most successful artists are the most pirated, so the rich get richer still and the really good musicians, they are kept in the dark shadows. They can shove their commercial autotuned shit and shove it up their rectum.

Re:Scrap the CD-R levy then.

[Anonymous Coward]

wtf. appearantly noone in the u.s. should be worried either:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_copying_levy#United_States

Re:Scrap the CD-R levy then.

[DarthVain]

Seriously the CRIA couldn't have timed this worse for themselves. Look at the outpouring of anger directed toward the internet ISP's being corporate jerks ripping off the people. Think of the results.

So lets say that CRIA is successful. This is against search. So now you get another large corporate industry limiting what people can do online. How do you think people are going to react now? How do you think the government is likely to react to that, particularly with a possible election in the future?

Now have someone point out that the CRIA is getting paid several different ways through levy's, increasing the cost of consumer media, ripping off people. Now have someone else point out about the HUGE copyright infringement case AGAINST the CRIA just last year (largest in the world for violations and damages so far that I know)... and that lawsuit was actually brought to court by actual music artists, against their association, ripping them off! Have someone else point out how much the CRIA "contributes" to politicians (and which ones).

Put all that together and you are going to have a very angry populace. Personally I see this going very bad for them. ISOHUNT has also shown that it will not back down and that it will go through court. What scares me a bit is that, considering what would happen if they lost, they must be VERY confident that they will win.

Secret?

[Anonymous Coward]

How do you file a massive lawsuit secretly?

That secret part didn't work out particularly well considering it's posted on /.

Characterizations

[dontmakemethink]

These people are devious, selfish, resourceful, and have no respect for the law.

The above statement is about:
A - record labels
B - people who download music illegitimately
C - people who distribute music illegitimately
D - EVERYONE EXCEPT US MUSICIANS

When the labels don't get paid, they take fewer and fewer risks on new talent, and the result is that the only music that gets promoted is over-produced over-hyped generic dogshit. Anyone catch that Superbowl halftime show? That's what happens when real talent goes unrewarded.

BTW my friend is about to be signed, here's a song about how difficult the industry has become. If a hottie with pipes like this going unsigned for 10 years doesn't convince you that piracy is killing the industry, nothing will. Gene Simmons called her "the best unsigned singer out there", she's being called "Amy Winehouse without the baggage" and "a super-hot Susan Boyle" by industry-leading agents and label reps.

Re:Characterizations

[Anonymous Coward]

If a hottie with pipes like this going unsigned for 10 years doesn't convince you that piracy is killing the industry, nothing will.

Cause: capitalism.

Re:Characterizations

[whoever57]

BTW my friend is about to be signed, here's a song about how difficult the industry has become. If a hottie with pipes like this going unsigned for 10 years doesn't convince you that piracy is killing the industry, nothing will.

Why connection is there between this unsigned singer and piracy? In your post, I see only unsupported assertions on a connection between piracy and risk-taking.

I suspect that the problem for artists is that there is always another artist who is just that little bit more desperate to be signed. Labels love control and they sign the artists that can be most easily controlled. Those artists that are created by labels -- how much does the money distribution favor the artists versus the labels, when compared to an artist that has already established some level of support and fame? In other words, there is a strong financial incentive to create and sign acts rather than discovering artists. .

This post is full of speculative suggestions, but I will assert that it has as much evidential basis as yours (ie. none!).

Re:Characterizations

[Anonymous Coward]

I can't help but laugh every time I hear "artists" bitching about not being able to make a living.

Re:Characterizations

[Scarletdown]

BTW my friend is about to be signed, here's a song about how difficult the industry has become. If a hottie with pipes like this going unsigned for 10 years doesn't convince you that piracy is killing the industry, nothing will. Gene Simmons called her "the best unsigned singer out there", she's being called "Amy Winehouse without the baggage" and "a super-hot Susan Boyle" by industry-leading agents and label reps.

She seems talented enough that she should not need to rely on being signed by a label. She can make it fine on her own, one would think.

Re:Characterizations

[mini me]

Something doesn't add up. Gene Simmons has his own record label. Why would he turn down the opportunity to sign, by his own admission, the best person he can possibly work with?

Re:Characterizations

[dryeo]

B - people who download music illegitimately

How do you download music illegitimately (in Canada). Buy a blank CD and the record companies get a cut, so they're getting paid for people doing backups, copying their legitimately copyrighted photos to a CD and so on. This caused the courts to rule that sharing music is not illegal.
 

Re:Characterizations

[Anonymous Coward]

+1 informative - good luck

Re:Characterizations

[Richard_at_work]

Out of interest, how many torrents end up on a cd-r or DVD-r? I haven't personally bought a spindle in 5 years, or burned a DVD in the last year.

Re:Characterizations

[Anonymous Coward]

exactly. Why be bullied by these big labels when you can sell your own music independently. Its possible to make similiar profits without the stress and "creative enslavement" of a corporate record label. A good example of this is John Butler.

Re:Characterizations

[janek78]

I don't know about Canada, but here (EU, Czech Republic) we pay the levy for hard drives, USB flash disks, copiers,... Except for blank paper, I believe they have it covered. So it's hard to feel quilty when your new hard drive comes "pre-paid".

Re:Characterizations

[L4t3r4lu5]

Labels have audiences. She probably wouldn't be signed up on Roadrunner Records either, even if the dude at the top said she was pretty good.

Re:Characterizations

[Anonymous Coward]

Same here in Switzerland. 1/3 of the price of a 160 GB music player is the stupid levy. Thats about $100, folks!

Re:Characterizations

[Anonymous Coward]

B - people who download music illegitimately

How do you download music illegitimately (in Canada). Buy a blank CD and the record companies get a cut

Which companies get a cut for an unsigned artist?

Re:Characterizations

[SilentMobius]

Right, the only way to make money as a talented person is to ensure that corporate music is screwing _so many_ other artists that they have enough left over cash to throw at someone they consider a "50/50" or less bet?

That song sound like its about a shitty industry that has been shitty for 40+ years, the notion that copyright infringement is what has made it shitty is laughable.

BTW, its a great song and she has a great voice, I'll see if I can buy some of her work as long as I can get it straight from her and not through a label.

Re:Characterizations

[Anonymous Coward]

You mention 'hotties, Gene Simmons, Amy Winehouse, and Susan Boyle'. And the law. And 'hotties' and 'pipes'. Please understand my lack of respect, and (apparently first and foremost in your head) my money.

Re:Characterizations

[Anonymous Coward]

That's the most illogical BS I've read in a long time. You start by saying labels are screwing new talent, then go on to say your friend is trying to get in with a label. She needs to grow the fuck up and market her own stuff if the label won't do it for her. THAT is what the internet is for, and part of why your friend is failing is that she's trying to get into the same niche (with the same crap music and style) as a million other wannabes. She should carve her own niche online, running it like a business with loans if necessary, or finding a modern, net-focused label that'll work with her.

If you're failing with new tech, it's because you're not using it right, the same way a weaver failed if (s)he didn't up her game during the industrial revolution.

Re:Characterizations

[AmonTheMetalhead]

These people are devious, selfish, resourceful, and have no respect for the law.

The above statement is about: A - record labels B - people who download music illegitimately C - people who distribute music illegitimately D - EVERYONE EXCEPT US MUSICIANS

When the labels don't get paid, they take fewer and fewer risks on new talent, and the result is that the only music that gets promoted is over-produced over-hyped generic dogshit. Anyone catch that Superbowl halftime show? That's what happens when real talent goes unrewarded.

BTW my friend is about to be signed, here's a song about how difficult the industry has become. If a hottie with pipes like this going unsigned for 10 years doesn't convince you that piracy is killing the industry, nothing will. Gene Simmons called her "the best unsigned singer out there", she's being called "Amy Winehouse without the baggage" and "a super-hot Susan Boyle" by industry-leading agents and label reps.

I disagree with your reasoning here, mainstream music has always mostly been shit, for every Rolling Stones they do sign there are a thousand other smaller bands just as awesome, this has been the case for as long as i can remember, and i have the memory of an elephant.

Piracy isn't killing the music industry, the music industry is killing itself. I own hundreds of Cd's, and only a small percentage of those are major labels, all the rest i bought directly from the artists themselves at gigs. I have access to torrents, and i do download Cd's, but if the CD i downloaded is good, I'll end up buying the CD.

If i look at my last.fm charts, i notice how much of the music i play is either years old or obscure, 1% is probably mainstream, if the big labels want to sell to me, they'll have to sell good music instead of enforcing laws that gives them levies on blank Cd's or laws that take my rights away.

As for your friend, it's not bad, but i like her better ;)

Re:Characterizations

[AmonTheMetalhead]

BTW my friend is about to be signed, here's a song about how difficult the industry has become. If a hottie with pipes like this going unsigned for 10 years doesn't convince you that piracy is killing the industry, nothing will. Gene Simmons called her "the best unsigned singer out there", she's being called "Amy Winehouse without the baggage" and "a super-hot Susan Boyle" by industry-leading agents and label reps.

She seems talented enough that she should not need to rely on being signed by a label. She can make it fine on her own, one would think.

Who needs labels these days? There's a studio around every corner and everyone can get a CD mastered these days, and if you use music sites you get to promote your work globally for free, get your fans in gear and you have a marketing force, tour a bit and people will notice you if you're good.

Re:Characterizations

[AmonTheMetalhead]

There is a similar thing in Belgium, i can't go out and buy a freaking SD Card for my camera without money going to the labels. Fuck That

Re:Characterizations

[AmonTheMetalhead]

The levy for blank paper is included in the price of the printer, at least it is in Belgium. Buy a multifunction device that can print & scan, and you get to pay a nice copyright tax on it, you just might be copying books! /sarcasm

Re:Characterizations

[AmonTheMetalhead]

You must be joking, the unsigned artists should be glad they still get to sing every now and then without being sued to the grave!

Re:Characterizations

[Anonymous Coward]

BTW my friend is about to be signed, here's a song about how difficult the industry has become. If a hottie with pipes like this going unsigned for 10 years doesn't convince you that piracy is killing the industry, nothing will. Gene Simmons called her "the best unsigned singer out there", she's being called "Amy Winehouse without the baggage" and "a super-hot Susan Boyle" by industry-leading agents and label reps.

I'd pay more than an album's worth to go watch her sing live. I would not buy her album though I just don't listen to this style of music often. Musicians used to make money by doing live shows and the albums were just nice added money (James Brown and his band used to do over 300 shows per year).

Re:Characterizations

[Legion303]

"and the result is that the only music that gets promoted is over-produced over-hyped generic dogshit."

So business as usual, then, like they've been doing for the past 50 years. Gotcha.

Re:Characterizations

[Posting=!Working]

"If a hottie with pipes like this going unsigned for 10 years doesn't convince you that piracy is killing the industry, nothing will. "

WTF? That is a HUGE irrational logical jump there.

There are hundreds of possible reasons she hasn't been signed, none of which are 'piracy is killing the industry." She could be a complete bitch and pissed off the wrong people. She could be completely unrealistic about a deal. Hot and talented singers are not that rare, I know quite a few - that's not all it takes. There are some that still can't draw a crowd. Maybe her songwriting sucks. There's way too many probable and possible reasons that she isn't signed to jump to the near impossible conclusion that piracy is to blame for her not being signed. If piracy caused record labels to cut the number of people signed in half, that only would have dropped her chance of being signed by a major label from 0.00002% to 0.00001%.

No offense to your friend, but if Gene Simmons and "industry-leading agents and label reps" said all that and she still didn't get signed, they were just being nice. If they really thought that, there would have been no need to post this, she would have had a deal already.

The drop in production costs means there is more music available from more bands than ever before, and nearly all of I can get right now without leaving my couch. The music industry is better than it has ever been in history. It's just the huge record labels that are fucked.

Re:Characterizations

[Anonymous Coward]

Why does she even need to be "signed"?

Also, yes, she can sing, but that's not *terribly* uncommon. I mean, not as common as having feet or a self-centric opinion, but still kinda common.... like 5-to-15-%-of-society common, which is actually a LOT of people. Maybe people just aren't buying what they don't need. I'm not convinced piracy is to blame for that, or that any blame is even necessary. Times change.

For example, more artists sell CDs on their personal websites than ever, and others give material away for free on youtube. I can spend all day watching breathtaking amateur stuff online (not piracy!). Why would I buy music? Will the CRIA or RIAA start suing people who don't charge anything for their original art on the claim that it cuts into their forecasted sales? Maybe career-creativity is no longer viable long-term simply from so many people creating for nothing... Shall we shut down the Internet to stop these industry-destroyers?

I guess nothing will convince me.

Re:Characterizations

[Anonymous Coward]

So the music you like is good music because you like it but the music that is bought by more people is bad music because you don't like it?

Re:Characterizations

[Anonymous Coward]

99.9% of all the CD-R and DVD-R I've ever bought have nothing but my own copyrighted data on them. I guess I should consider my levy contribution a donation to the music industry.

Re:Characterizations

[night_flyer]

more people eat at McDonald's than the local steakhouse, does that mean McDonald's is superior?

Re:Characterizations

[Anonymous Coward]

Only small labels sign musicians from specific genres to serve niche audiences. The big labels all have multiple imprints that cater to different tastes. No exec worth his salt would pass on solid talent over something as trivial as that. I mean, how many times have they signed musicians only to try and mold them into whatever it is they think their audience will pay the most money for? A record label passing on a goldmine because they don't have the audience is like a track star running around hurdles.

Re:Characterizations

[multipartmixed]

> If a hottie with pipes like this going unsigned for 10 years doesn't
> convince you that piracy is killing the industry, nothing will.

This year's Grammy for "Best Album" was awarded to a Canadian band that is not signed to a major record label.

This is a tough, transitional period but -- mark my words -- the major studios are on their way out.

And your friend is probably unsigned because the studios don't have A&R men any more. They have computers that listen to songs and decide if you sound enough like the Black Eyed Peas to be "awarded" an eggregious contract or not.

Re:Characterizations

[Overzeetop]

That's not what he said. He didn't say that she should be signed, nor that she was good, or talented, or merketable. Merely that if you exclude the tens of thousands of artists that are signed to (presumably) record label contracts, mong the cruft that's left, she it the best.

If she's really good, and has really good songs, she hire a promoter and book venues, or find a studio gig for advertising. Just being talented - in the arts or anywhere else - doesn't mean shit if you're not willing to work your ass off to become successful. It doesn't come served up at your whim or request. If you think someone is going to "discover" your talent, you may as well go buy a lottery ticket. It's cheaper and your chances are better.

Re:Characterizations

[Cheech Wizard]

If a hottie with pipes like this going unsigned for 10 years doesn't convince you that piracy is killing the industry, nothing will. Gene Simmons called her "the best unsigned singer out there", she's being called "Amy Winehouse without the baggage" and "a super-hot Susan Boyle" by industry-leading agents and label reps.

What poppy cock. There are hundreds of thousands of great singers in the world. I've seen local singers who come close to Laura Nyro (RIP). Same for musicians. There are hundreds of thousands of *great* musicians in the world. You fine 1 person who *you* think is a "hottie" and should be "signed". So what. Piracy isn't killing these people's living. Many don't even sing or play music for a living. I know a bass player who is unbelievable, but he's a bartender by trade because he wants to be. He loves to jam, but isn't interested in the commercial aspect. He's gone without a contract for about 40 years. Face it - The internet is making (has made?) the "Big Labels" obsolete.

Re:Characterizations

[Anonymous Coward]

"When the labels don't get paid, they take fewer and fewer risks on new talent, and the result is that the only music that gets promoted is over-produced over-hyped generic dogshit. Anyone catch that Superbowl halftime show? That's what happens when real talent goes unrewarded."

Sorry, this is a myth. Generic dogshit has always been the bread and butter of major record labels. It has nothing to do with piracy. The music industry is and always has been a lottery, and this is by design.

Furthermore, the CRIA isn't paying you anyway, in fact, they are pirating your music.
http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/4596/135/

Re:Characterizations

[Bucc5062]

I listened/watched the video (which I figure was part of why you posted a link, not just to complain about piracy), and found her to have a voice and sound I could listen too. So is the only path to stardom through a label? Does she tour, work at small gigs, or otherwise advertise her wares? Is there a (gasp) myspace site where more music is heard? Is there a fan web site to distribute concert info, merchandise, song samples?

She may have gone unsigned for 10 years, because she did not use the "free" media to get her name out there, to get a following that big labels will latch on too for money. Personally speaking, I wish she'd not sign a label, but use the tools out there today to get her name, and her music out there to the masses. Hell, you just did it here using /. as a free promotion. If she's good enough, people will listen, word will spread, she gets noticed.

back when it was radio stations or television, labels played the part of shill for the musicians. They had access to the people who decided what was and was not played over the air. They also had the machine to help promote an artist including marketing and distribution. Today, as another posted mentioned, an artist can go to a local studio and record good quality music (or buy software and run a board themselves). They can start a web site,or get a Facebook/myspace account, and of course start touring, even if it is local pubs and coffee houses. If you are good, they will come. Signing with a label these days is really playing with the devil. I wish her the best and as I said, I'd buy an album from her.

Re:Characterizations

[ginbot462]

When has - in the history of humanity - musicians made a great living like they did in the past century? Your best hope was to be composer .. and there were few of those that would be known by people today. Face it, rock stardom was an aberration on the time scale. They were the gladiators of their time being controlled by their lanista.

Re:Characterizations

[DarthVain]

People still use CD's? How quaint.

Re:Characterizations

[Gorphrim]

These people are devious, selfish, resourceful, and have no respect for the law.

The above statement is about: A - record labels B - people who download music illegitimately C - people who distribute music illegitimately D - EVERYONE EXCEPT US MUSICIANS

A - she is cute at best, certainly not a hottie
B - i've heard better voices in my hometown local music scene
C - who the fuck cares what Gene Simmons thinks?
D - if you think every non-musician is "devious, selfish, resourceful, and have no respect for the law"......then your comments are not worth reading.

Re:Characterizations

[dryeo]

Probably not many now. In the past quite a few and they keep trying to expand the levy to anything that might have copyrighted material on it.
My wife mails DVD-rs back and forth with her family and I've known musicians who have to pay the levy to record their own music on CD-r.
The point is that the industry wants everything, a cut of every blank media and the government enforcing their copyright.

Re:Characterizations

[Piata]

If she's so talented, why the hell does she need a music label? The internet provides anyone with natural talent and enough ambition to cut out the middleman entirely. If she's really dedicated to the art, she's going to work hard at it anyways so I don't see what she gains by having a couple of corporate overlords diluting her artistic creations to the point where it's ready for mass consumption on the radio.

It's 2011. The world has changed. The music industry has changed. This is the twilight of the mega pop star and I couldn't be happier for it. A shining example of this is The Arcade Fire winning the album of the year Grammy over Eminem, Lady Antebellum, Lady Gaga, Katy Perry. Times are changing. It's a shame your friend is clinging to such dated ideals.

Re:Characterizations

[BJ_Covert_Action]

You probably ought to at least post her name if you are promoting for her. Not everyone can access YouTube when they browse Slashdot, and having an artist name to write down would give them the opportunity to go look her up via their own means.

Re:Characterizations

[Anonymous Coward]

If a hottie with pipes like this going unsigned for 10 years doesn't convince you that piracy is killing the industry, nothing will. Gene Simmons called her "the best unsigned singer out there", she's being called "Amy Winehouse without the baggage" and "a super-hot Susan Boyle" by industry-leading agents and label reps.

So, you think every girl who can sing well and is hot gets signed? Since when? Have you ever been to LA? There are equally hot and talented girls working as waitresses all over the place. In your friend's case, she would be better off if a lot of people were sharing her music because then she would have more exposure. I would say that the lack of piracy is probably hurting her career.

Oh well, you can always slashdot her and see how that goes. I hope it at least gets you laid...

Re:Characterizations

[Anonymous Coward]

how exactly is your friend's super-hotness at all relevant to her skill in the craft? Don't you think it is dependence on the level of physical attractiveness required to be signed more indicative of why the only promoted music is over-produced over-hyped generic dogshit? Why would it need to be over-produced and over-hyped if the "less risky" singers/bands are the ones with the most talent? I would think that the ones with the most talent/skill would be the least risky, but they're not. . . ergo: your premise is wrong.
Piracy has JACKSHIT to do with who gets signed, being pretty has significantly more to do with it. Just look at that bullshit American Idol, what was it like season two or three, where the fat black guy who won never went anywhere while the pretty white-boy who was NOT voted the "best singer in America" had at least like four singles and an album or two.

Re:Characterizations

[Demonantis]

There are two worlds of music. The people that play local and the people that get signed. From what I have heard about the latter. Not getting signed is probably a good thing in the end. Record labels have become parasites in the end and once artists stop supporting them things will hopefully get better. Labels used to have a purpose and have now been for the most part replaced by cheaper technology. Eventually they will be gone. It is just that they have a lot of money behind them that will have some momentum. Typewriters are not as large a market as they once were. Nor are theater performances. People who enjoy them will use them, but everyone should not be forced to subscribe. Remember how long it took labels to adopt digital distribution channels. Even though they complain loudly that they struggle to sell music.

Re:Characterizations

[Anonymous Coward]

She's just another white girl singing black music. That shit's been done.

Re:Check out this fat slut

[unity100]

and relevance is ?

The content industry, lying to manipulate you?

[Anonymous Coward]

Surely this is unprecedented in the history of mass media.

Sing for your supper like everyone else.

[joebob2000]

Want money? go play gigs. Why is it a god given right to get rich off a few songs or get money for the rest of your life for performances over a short period of time. Same with software, etc. Someone still has to work to make the food that artists living off IP eat. Sounds like a great situation to be in, but getting on a moral high horse about your god-given right to hit the jackpot and be supported in luxury by society for the rest of your life is a stretch.

One day's work for one day's pay. No need for labels, copyrights, etc. Most people work under that system (jobs) and it does not require locking up college kids for downloading something that has an average economic shelf life of a couple weeks.

Does CRIA own the copyright to the torrents?

[Anonymous Coward]

Does CRIA own the copyright to the torrents? If not, there's no copyright infringement going on at IsoHunt.

Oh cry me a river

[SmallFurryCreature]

Really, go and cry me a river.

NOBODY OWNS YOU A LIVING. There is no law anywhere that states you have some inalienable right to make your living the way you want to. You can TRY in any free nation but NOWHERE is success guaranteed.

I want to make a living as a male escort, ergo all you men who are giving sex away for free or worse PAYING for it are stealing the bread out of my mouth, you rapists are even worse!

Oh, that is my problem? Well then your friend not being signed up by some massive record label for a huge budget is NOT my problem either.

Do you buy your bread from the supermarket? What about the dreams of a guy/girl who wanted to become a baker and own their own little store making fresh tasty bread every day? No, but you buy it from the supermarket don't you. THIEF!

Times change, used to be that some people got lucky (talent never had anything to do with it) and got signed up and made it big. That is nice. But there always been far more that didn't make it.

Oh and there is such a thing as independ labels or even doing it yourself. Countless bands play purely for the love it and try to recoup some of the costs by apparearing at small events and selling a handfull of self made CD's. That not good enough for your friend? Then she ain't in it for the love of music but is just a money sucking whore who didn't get signed because she didn't suck enough dick.

Really, this is like coal-miners protesting about the closure of mines or the protests about the motor car ruining the horse trade. Except that the death of the mass music industry will only affect sell outs and shills. So cry me a river because I won't be shedding a tear.

Re:Oh cry me a river

[Combatso]

just to let you know, i read that comment to the tune of "Drift Away"... and smiled

Onus

[Fnord666]

"...the onus is suddenly placed right on the copyright creator to prove the infringement."

Wait, what? Isn't the onus already on the copyright holder to prove infringement?

Re:Onus

[Even on Slashdot FOE]

No, the onus is on the person accused to prove their innocence, as it is with all copyright laws.

Also, the accused has the onus of trying not to go bankrupt due to legal fees, which is also kind of hard.

BUT the only provide a link

[Anonymous Coward]

BUT the only provide a link and not the infringing material and as we know linking is as a judge recently said up to the user visiting the links responsibility NOT hte poster of the link.
and you add further smashing to the suit buy the blank MEDIA levy.
Supreme court affirmed that sharing music was ok because that media suit was about music, is not tv and movies also media?
AND any sane person would say yes and , if i am placing said stuff into a pending directory to be placed on blank media that has a levy i should then be legally covered.

case dismissed

open source tv - pioneer one

[Anonymous Coward]

open source tv - pioneer one, via donations has paid fo r6 eps so far to get made.
radio head proved donation based makes them more money
Linux open source software proves free can work and be profitable.

oh no whats next open source style pioneer one doantion movies?
give me 3dsmax let me make money and ill buy said software.
give me DMCA and ill do nothing and you can lose all round.

And your comment lends me to think maybe you should be downloading more prono. Last i checked you as a musican should not care so much about a person being hot as the music is good.
IF the artist is so good put out the best track and see if people will buy the rest at 50 cents a track off your own website.
CUT out the middle man is what this entire movement is about.

Anything gene simmons says is moot , he after all wants kids to get raped in jails.

What about Bell?

[Anonymous Coward]

Bell seems to be enabling and profiting from this mass-piracy, especially in light of UBB...

I just pay for my music

[AdrianKemp]

Before I get a down mod for being one of those terrible people who buy music let me make something clear; I do not think that downloading/recording music for free is unethical. Copyright started as an agreement for distribution channels and that is what it should remain. When someone downloads a song they are bypassing that distribution channel but are in no way harming or invalidating it. Re-distributing music however, is unethical and should be punished; artists agree to a distribution channel and by redistributing their content you are harming that agreement and them.

I buy songs through itunes, it's a great experience and at some level I am supporting the artist. I also email every group I like pleading with them to break the label contract as soon as they can and release their music with all proceeds going directly to themselves. I don't like supporting labels, but I refuse to support those that are bypassing the artists' chosen distribution channel.

The great thing about recording the radio or a live stream etc. is that no one ever knows. You can't be prosecuted because there is no evidence outside of your own home/computer. The people who are getting in trouble over this are the ones that support mass-redistribution... they deserve what they get.

Re:I just pay for my music

[TehZorroness]

do you really think that huge corporations deserve the right to cash in on the works of authors who have been dead for decades?

Re:I just pay for my music

[AdrianKemp]

The labels are given that right by the people who create the music. Do you think you deserve the right to override the musicians decisions about their music?

I hate labels as much as the next guy, I was very clear about that. But you don't get to void an artists legal rights to choose what happens with their creations simply because you find their business partners unsavory.

In your example of dead musicians, do children have the right to override the will of their parents because they don't agree with it? (hint: no, they don't)

There are many things that should burn the major labels to the ground. They're anticompetitive, they steal from their clients and harass the public in court. Get your government to revoke their rights to do business, but don't be unethical simply because they are.

Let us go against them for a change.

[Joah_from_Alberta]

Can't we Canadian people file a class action lawsuit against CRIA for infringing upon our private approach to development? It's time that we stand up to these corporate brutes, look what happened in Egypt? They stood up against the bullies and they took them down.

how to make a number one the easy way

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.kirps.com/web/main/resources/music/themanual/

anyone can do it.

CRIA me a river

[diskofish]

CRIA me a river!

the tax man

[ProfBooty]

I've said this before and I will say it again, I never understand why the taxman won't step in and fix this. Seems like the feds should be able to take in a considerable amount of money.

Re:the tax man

[hesaigo999ca]

I am sure they are being paid off somehow, whether it is with orgy nights with some celebs, and supermodels from hollywood or what not, but in the end, I am sure the taxman is very aware of what it is losing, but maybe does not seem to care because of said exchange.

YDNRC (+5 Informative, but incorrect.)

[Anonymous Coward]

IIRC it was the Court of Appeals (second highest court) that ruled that sharing music was legal.

Nope. Only private copying.

Pot Meet Kettle

[ddoctorisin]

So it's ok for CRIA to screw artists out of their money for years and to settle for less than 0.5% of what the artists were entitled to . But not OK for ISOhunt to provide torrent trackers to people who may legitimately own the title they are attempting to download. It's funny to see how things are handled when the shoe is on the other foot. It's interesting that these same record labels did not try to sue CRIA for their artists which they were so concerned. "At one point the lists had grown to over 300,000 works for which no license had been obtained and no compensation paid by record labels, thus in October of 2008 artists gave up trying to convince record labels to listen to their complaints and turned to the courts for help."

oh come on...

[Thraxy]

No offence to Canadians, but being caught downloading Canadian music is kinda like being caught shoplifting at the dollar store. Even if you get away with it, all you've got is useless crap.

Send a letter to Patrick Leahy

[Intrinsic]

http://leahy.senate.gov/contact/
Here is my letter:

Regarding your Speech at the Hearing On Costly Problem Of Online Infringement.
You state that people who steal will always find a way. That statement clearly shows that your administration doesn't understand the issues at hand. For one thing, making a copy of a bike and taking the copy home to assemble a new bike from a copy at home doesn't mean its a its stealing. If someone found a way to scan a bike and make a copy of it, it would be new technology and it would change the way we went about obtaining bikes. Its not productive to ban the makers and users of the technology simply because they have made it much more easier for people to obtain want they need.

When the entertainment industry refers to music piracy as using bolt cutters to steal a bike what would happen if we started banning or restricting the use of bolt cutters simply because the product has non-legitimate uses?

This is an issue where the entertainment industry saw the writing on the wall (digital entertainment being much easier to distribute) and choose to do nothing about it. Now they are losing business because of their decision to do nothing and now should pay the price for doing nothing. Dont make the public suffer with further restrictions on copying simply because this industry choose to stick their head in the sand and not change their business. If you follow the same line that they caused you and your administration is going to perpetuate the problem and cause more suffering than needed. If you are taking money from this industry I suggest you stop doing so and simple bow out. you are not helping the American people by catering to this industry's wishes. They exist because the people of this country allow them to. Nothing more, nothing less.