It must be, as there are still lots more bands that want record labels than have record labels. I hope you were being rhetorical.
One thing we can agree on: It's abundantly clear that Slashdotters know much more about the music industry than, say, those actually in the industry. Pity the music industry won't listen. Makes me wonder if those who are out there actually being successful not following your simple steps -- as well as those who are following your simple steps and finding that it isn't exactly working as planned -- are likewise brimming with ideas for next-generation strategies for SQL deployment across Linux clusters.
"And the rest I would guess are the same as how radio works... but one original and pay the record company every time you sell a copy (play the track)"
Not in the USA. When a song is played on the radio, it's the composer and songwriter who get paid, not the record company.
" It has never really been about music being freely traded. These attacks on p2p is purely a way to stop minor labels from growing and up and coming musicians from doing it on their own."
I think that's too much of a generalization. I've met owners of indie labels who are anti-piracy. If a major loses 10% of their business to piracy, it's just a few layoffs or salary freezes here and there. If you run an indie label, you're paying yourself $20,000 a year, and your income drops 10% due to piracy, it might mean firing one of the six people who work for you, somebody whom you know very well. And from what I've read on the web sites of the various indie record label trade groups, their goal is to have better representation on iTunes, not Kazaa.
Either way, there are tons of outlets on the web for unsigned bands and small labels to get the their stuff out. The traffic of pirated MP3s on the P2P networks tends to mirror the sales in stores. Most people who use Kazaa are there for the latest Eminem or Usher, not some unsigned garage deathcore band from Wisconsin.
"If the cost of production approachs zero, then musicians will not need labels. As it is, the major labels are making as much money as ever before."
Slashdotters have been saying, in effect, "the big labels are history once all the bands discover that the mighty power of the Internet is all they need" for five years now. Meanwhile, companies like Magnatune (which many Slashdotters see as the right way to sell music online) are struggling, while iTunes just hit its 200 millionth download, Universal has launched a digital only label, and Apple and the record companies are having the last laugh. Slashdotters often claim that the record companies just don't get this whole Internet thing, but it seems to me that they get it just fine. Perhaps all it will take is another five years for the Internet to put the record labels out of business, but before that will happen, somebody will need to tell the record labels to stop using the Internet to their advantage.
While many bands who can't get, or don't want a recording contract have used the Internet as a promotional and distribution vehicle, finding success is much, much more than getting the cost of production to zero. The Internet and the P2P will not:
pay for your studio time, or pay for the gear for you to build your own studio
pay for an engineer who can make you sound good
pay for session musicians
pay for the cost of encoding your music and going through the hurdles of getting it onto iTMS
send a copy of your song to every radio station in the country, and follow up with phone calls to pester them to play your track
make the phone calls and pay the costs necessary for your tour
pay to get you featured on the home page of Amazon.com and the download sites
Meanwhile, a record label will.
The Internet is great, but it's not the universal panacea.
"The article spoke of the harm to musicans but doesn't metion even one. Can you imagine an artcile about the impact of a factory closing on its workers, without mentioning even one actual worker who was impacted? I think it's bullshit."
You think what's bullshit? That Canadian musicians have suffered economic harm as a result of piracy? I for one have downloaded several Sarah McGlaughlin (she's a Canadian, even though I'm sure I'm mangling her name) tracks from P2P services instead of buying them. So I'm sure she's lost a buck or two as a result of my actions. I can't be the only one.
"I just want one bit of proof from one musican that he gets this money. Just one."
That's not something that I can give you, because (a) I'm not a Canadian, (b) not a musician, and (c) not in the music industry. Since Bryan Adams and Rush do not frequent this web site, you're just not looking in the right place, sorry. However, I am quite positive that there are web forums out there set up for the use of Canadian musicians, big and small. A few seconds of Google will help you here. You can go directly to the source. If you think it's a Big Lie and that this money isn't actually distributed as it says it is, that'd be quite a story you'd have there. If you think they're lying, I sincerely recommend you research this... if you can discover that it is, that will be big news.
The exact impact of piracy on musicians is something of great debate. Nobody here will be able to give you an exact answer, because nobody knows. Read the propaganda from the record companies ("we'll be going out of business next year!") and from pro-piracy Slashdotters ("piracy actually helps the musician!"), the independent research, and make up your own mind. Trying to tell other Slashdotters that they "don't get it" won't help you in this task.
As you can see, the record company gets the smallest slice of the pie. Performers, composers and songwriters get 85%.
"In the US the record companies hold the copyrights, I'm guessing it's no different in Canada."
In the US, the copyright for the words and music are retained by the lyricist and composer (at least one of whom is often the performer). The copyright on the recording is often shared among some combination of the record company, the producer, and the engineer. At either rate, that's irrelevant to the way in which the levy is distributed.
If you have any other questions, I encourage you to poke around that site a little more.
"I know this has been said before, but I find it hard to understand how the record companies claim millions or billions lost due to piracy. There's no real way to even come close to an actual dollar amount. I'm sure there's some effect, but I have a hard time believing it's as great as the record companies claim."
You're correct. The record companies hire their own analysts and accountants, then there's third party independent research firms who conduct their own analysis, and then there's consumers who have their own gut instincts. If I can make some broad generalizations and summarize:
Record companies: "we're losing billions! It's going to put us out of business! Won't somebody think of the artists! Oh, and the children."
Independent analysts: "there are indeed significant lost sales due to piracy, but not as large as the record companies state."
Slashdot users: "Piracy actually helps the record industry, because I'm providing free advertising. Yeah, I might even go out and buy two copies of a CD after I've warezed it. Oh, and I might go to the concert, too."
The correct answer is, as the math texts state, left to the reader.
"Let's not forget the huge percentage of each CD sale that the record companies take."
Hmm... I've lost you there. Do you have a cite for that? The best data I can find is that the Canadian music industry, as a whole, operates on net margins of about 12%. That's about as well as Logitech and Creative Labs do. Then again, the Vivendi Universal group (a major record label) only managed negative three percent net margin last year, and Time Waner (which includes Warner Music) cleared an 8% net margin.
I often do see people who point out that since a CD costs two bucks to produce and they sell it to the stores for eight bucks, they must be making money hand over fist, but those people are largely idiots who don't have a grasp of the concept of gross margin vs. net margin. So, if you have any data to support the idea of huge profit margins in the recording industry, please post it. The market shows otherwise.
"Digital sharing of copyrighted music in countries which put a tax on CD-Rs, MP3 players, etc. is effectively legal, since you're paying for the priviledge of doing so whether you actually are or not."
Not correct. There might be laws on the book of that country which allow copying under a certain set of circumstances, but the existence of a tarrif or levy does not in itself make piracy legal. It's designed to offset the financial damage purportely suffered by artists, songwriters and the like but doesn't even come close to being a signifant part of their income.
Likewise, if a country charges a tax to pay for fire departments, this does not make arson effectively legal.
"The Canadian way is to pay levys/taxes on everything so we don't have to worry about anything. Healthcare, perscription drugs, and social programs are just a few things that are subsidized or free because of levys and taxes. Sure people like to argue about how well the system works, but last time I checked people don't go backrupt when they get sick here."
I've seen this statement by others before -- basically, "I pay a levy on blank media, so I can go ahead and pirate CDs, since the artist is getting paid."
It is vital to understand that this is not the equivalent of a socialized music industry. The levy, $0.21 per blank CD (about $0.17 in US dollars), is designed to partially compensate for lost income by artists due to piracy, but it doesn't come close to the actual amount lost by composers, songwriters, performers and record companies when one chooses to P2P a CD to avoid purchasing it at the store -- if it did and this were truly a socialized music production system, one could just go to the store and collect CDs for free. The reality is that the production costs for a CD (not including the media, marketing, or any profit, but including the money that the singer, songwriter and performers would lose out on) are typically north of $2 Canadian.
Additionally, only Canadian recording artists and record companies are eligible. Unless you're pirating exclusivly Bryan Adams and Rush, you're not helping them.
Since US citizens do pay taxes and levies but don't have many of the socialized systems that Canadians enjoy, we understand this. For example, we all know that we pay taxes to keep our roads intact, but at the same time, we understand that we can't take a pick-axe to the asphalt on our nearest boulevard without liability -- we can't point to the road tax and tell them to "stuff it," to use your phrase. Canada does have laws regarding personal copying of CDs that are more liberal than those in the US, but it's these laws, and not the levy, that allows you to make those copies.
"As long as people keep comparing good values such as sharing and copying to murder and bloodshed on the high seas, somebody needs to let in the cold harsh light of reality."
The word piracy is an example of a homonym, or more properly, a homograph. It's a fundamental part of the English language. Most people learn about homonyms and homographs in elementary school.
Nobody is comparing software piracy with sea piracy through the use of a homonym. Similarly, nobody is comparing dogs to trees when they use the word "bark," or birds with cowering with "quail," being reasonable with eating cotton candy and looking at pigs when they use the word "fair."
There are hundreds more examples. Surely you learned about this in elementary school. There are plenty of rational, intelligent arguments to make when discussing piracy and intellectual property, but pretending that you have a substandard knowledge of the English language just for the sake of argument is stupid and a waste of time.
You're correct... patents and copyrights have time limits. This is clearly stated in the US constitution. Nonetheless, "intellectual property" is the commonly accepted term.
"How about you keep your end of the deal (copyright only for 14 years, only on books, not on derivatives, and stop harassing my children), then maybe we will consider keeping ours."
This is the "if it was good enough for my forefathers, it's good enough for us" argument; "Shakespeare didn't need copyright laws" also falls under this umbrella.
First, I think you're spending way more effort than is necessary to rationalize piracy. Instead of saying that you're doing it as a social protest because you believe that copyright laws should exist as they did in 1793, why not just not worry about it justifying it to anybody, and simply acknowledge that you'd rather save a few bucks? Lots of people are doing it. You're being frugal with your money by using P2P rather than going to Best Buy... you're not joining the Montgomery Freedom March.
Other than that, arguments such as yours reveal a lack of understanding that laws commonly change as a result of technology. For example, your state did not have a vehicle code 100 years ago (or if it did, it probably covered carriages and horses), but due to the development of the automobile, it's a couple of inches thick by now. Motion pictures weren't covered by copyright until several years after the technology was introduced. That's just part of how society works. Technology advances, and the laws follow.
" To label an act "piracy" implies that it is being sold for profit by the "pirate"."
Perhaps to you, but the relevant dictionary definition (type "dict piracy" in the address bar if you're using Firefox) is the unauthorized reproduction of copyrighted or patented material -- no resale required. That's the commonly understood definition as well.
Occasionally somebody will roll into a Slashdot discussion and erroneously state that it's only piracy if it's resold, or (even more humorously) piracy only includes acts on the high seas. They're usually laughed at. My guess is that they do this in an effort to "sanitize" piracy... perhaps they feel the word has too much of a negative connotation that they'd rather not deal with... somewhat like how some spammers use the phrase "broadcast e-mail" to describe their services. I don't think there's anything to be ashamed of... if you'd rather download that CD via P2P than pay for it, fly the jolly roger proudly. Don't worry about rationalizing what you're doing -- you'd simply rather keep the money for yourself than give it so somebody else. It's perfectly understandable.
"With a staff like Leno's or Letterman's, I bet they have some pretty expensive jokes. Do they sue anyone who repeats them?"
My point exactly. It's their prerogative to set the conditions they wish for their intellectual property. Naturally, trying to enforce a "no reproduction" policy on their jokes would be stupid and unworkable. However, it's much more viable for, say, commercial software.
"So I guess all the video recordings I made with my vcr and let freinds view it because they didn't see the show was against the law. - the only difference is I didn't put them on the internet to share with other folks that didn't see it. what difference does it make if I shared a video tape recording with one friend or a thousand on the internet - you are still breaking the law."
Not correct. Copyright law is long and arcane for a reason; much of it goes into the nature of the nature of the use of copyrighted material. Phrases like "fair use" and "public performance" come into play here, as does the economic impact -- think about it for a few minutes and I'm sure you'll understand the potential difference in economic impact between watching a movie with some friends in the privacy of your home vs. making that movie available for download by thousands of strangers. Additionally, even while some trivial copyright infringement is technically illegal, it's under the radar and not worth enforcing.
By the way, lots of laws work this way. For example, there is certainly a difference between giving a joint to a friend vs. selling a thousand joints to a thousand "friends" whom you don't know; and there's a difference between sneaking a $10 bill out of your mom's purse vs. taking $10,000 from her.
"incase you haven't noticed code can/is considered to be 'intellectual property'. yet for some reason so many people don't love those laws and so something weird, they *give the code away for free*.. how strange.."
Nothing wrong with that. It's your intellectual property; if you want to give it away, that's your prerogative.
It's important to understand that everybody has that right. If I have a piece of intellectual property and I want to give it away, or sell it for $0.50, or $1.00, or a million bucks, or not make it available at all, that's my right as well. Others do not have the moral right to copy it without my will because others might make their own works available for a lower price or even give it away for free. Far too many Slashdotters slide down the slippery slope of "I create or use open source software, thus I have a moral free pass to help myself to intellectual property that's not open source."
"But in these days much of law concerns itself with the government ceding the rights of the people to businesses in order to create a more profitable economy for the owners of those businesses, and the morality of that is questionable."
Copyright law protects us all. Big companies tend to have the money to spend to protect their rights under the law, but the vast majority of copyrights are held by individuals who are certainly not big businesses and simply don't have the resources to defend themselves if some Slashdotter violates their rights in the guise of civil disobedience.
"In your specific case, you defend the rights of broadcasters at the expense of the man who cannot get TV. But, keep in mind that under Federal Law, that man is NOT allowed to broadcast so that TV stations can make money."
I'm not even sure how this relates to the case at hand (downloading TV shows as a substitute for paying for cable), but remember that anybody may apply for a television broadcasting license. There are tons of tiny UHF stations out there. Likewise, it's pretty easy for individuals to get airtime on community access stations. This isn't a case of company's rights vs. individual's rights at all.
"The right of companies to put satellites over my house or fly planes over my house so that I cannot launch planes or model rockets of my own?"
Getting a pilot's license is also fairly easy. It takes hard work, and there are safety requirements, but there are no private enterprises that are preventing the public at large from operating their own planes. I'm not familiar with model rocketry safety rules, but I'm not aware of any private companies that are restricting my rite to fly one.
I think the point that you are implicitly making is that flying a plane, launching a communication satellite, or operating a TV station requires money, and a large company is more likely to have the cash to do so than the average individual. You are absolutely correct, but this is not the same as a large company interfering with my right to do any of these things. Similarly, owning a Ferarri takes more money than most individuals have, whereas I can picture a successful company giving a Ferarri to an executive as a bonus. But if I want a Ferarri of my own, it's entirely up to me -- no private third party company is interfering with my rights to buy that Ferarri.
"I think the RIAA and the music industry should embrace P2P due to the fact that they can not stop it all, I don't belive in downloading music/films I buy them , but people need to adapt and get with the times. I belive the best thing for the music industry to do is release some songs for free and using a bittorrent to allow people to download them... Just my thoughts!"
The record companies' practice of releasing free tracks on the iTunes Music Store also appears to be successful. They'll keep doing it if it results in more sales. "Give away your product for free" only works as a business model if there's a potential revenue stream.
"So, the MPAA is putting comercials in the movies, sueing people that might help support the effort for movie sharing."
The MPAA is a trade organization that represents the film studios. If you see an advertisement before a film, that is the choice of the theatre owner, not the film company or the MPAA. If you see an advertisement during a movie, such as product placement, that is the choice of the director and producer, not the film company and certainly not the MPAA.
"Are they hurting for money????? I have not seen any reports on it."
I am not sure how that is relevant. Assume for a second that the MPAA has the same moral rights as you and I to protect their business. Is the morality of taking steps to reduce losses contingent on how much money you make? For example, if you own a store, is it less wrong to install a security system if you're losing money, than if your store is profitable? I see this argument made a lot on Slashdot (even when it's implicit, as appears to be in your post) -- that the better a company or an industry is doing, the less of a moral right they have to take steps to protect their financial interests. This rationalization is not one that we would apply to our own financial situations, so I'm not sure why it keeps coming up.
At any rate, to answer your question, some film studios did well this year, others did not. The MPAA represents many film studios.
The reform that you speak of is best handled by a free market economy (and remember, class, piracy is not part of a free market economy). I don't like ads before my movies, so I go to theatres which don't show them. I don't like cheesy product placements in my films, so I tend to see art house and indie films, which generally do not resort to these tactics.
"I don't understand why their services would be any different. You can use their system to send legal items or illegal items."
No worries, it's easy to understand if you think about it a bit. We'll use eDonkey and FedEx for the purpose of explanation, but you can substitute similar enterprises.
Ask yourself these questions:
What percentage of traffic on eDonkey is unauthorized pirated material? By comparison, what percentage of FedEx traffic is illegal?
If all the unauthorized material were to instantly disappear from eDonkey tomorrow, would they still have a business model? By comparison, if, magically, FedEx could no longer be used for illegal purposes, would FedEx still have a business model?
What draws most people to install eDonkey -- is it the promise of downloading copyrighted music and movies for free, or is it for downloading Linux distros and shareware? By comparison, what draws most people to patronize FedEx -- is it for legitimate purposes, or is it to send marijuana and pirated DVDs?
As you can see, the key is to understand the difference between the could be and the reality. Sure, it is theoretically possible that eDonkey could be used primarily for legal, authorized traffic, just as FedEx is used primarily used in a law-abiding manner -- but you and I know that's simply not the case. Piracy drives eDonkey.
There are P2P networks that limit themselves solely to content for which permission has been given. You don't see the rightsholders suing them -- in fact, they're striking deals. It's easy, but intellectually dishonest, to frame this as "The MPAA vs. P2P" when it's really the MPAA vs. pirates. If eDonkey had been designed to allow only authorized content, then there would be no legal action being taken.
If you're still not sure of the distinction, think of it this way: the legal action's been taken against the people who are running the hubs, not against eDonkey itself (yet). A better analogy would not be suing FedEx, but suing the guy who's using FedEx to send pirated DVDs.
"A band can now make a very professional recording all on their own, advertise it, and distribute it for next to nothing. The suits just haven't realized it yet."
Most artists haven't realized it yet, either. There are lots more people who want a recording contract than can get one.
While the Internet can be a great tool for individuals, small businesses, and big businesses, it's not going to replace hard work, experience, and cash. A DSL connection in your bedroom is not a substitute for an MBA, an engineering degree, or a big wad of money to pay people who know what they're doing. A web browser won't locate a 24-track recording studio and write checks to pay an engineer, producer, and session musicians. A broadband modem won't mail a CD to every radio station in the country and then call them to make sure they're playing your single. I'm very well aware that many Slashdotters claim that the Internet will put the record companies out of business Real Soon Now, but they've been saying this for more than five years. Meanwhile, interesting experiments like Magnatune are struggling, while Apple and the record companies are doing gangbuster business with the iTunes Music Store and having the last laugh. Who "gets it" more?
"you had Limp Bizkit, relatively unknown newcomers, supporting it (well, rather thankful of the fame it brought them without any advertizing costs), and Metallica, rock band in decline, who trashed the exchange platform, somewhat forgetful of how bootlegs made their band so famous back in the 80s."
Others may jump in to correct me, but my recollection is that Limp Bizkit was already at their apex at the time that they did their Napster-sponsored tour.
"If p2p application makers are held responsible for illegal file-swapping, should not gun makers be held responsible for the illegal use of their products?"
Generally, no. If you're not sure of the difference, ask yourselves these questions:
What percentage of traffic on Kazaa is unauthorized pirated material? By comparison, what percentage of gun owners use their guns for illegal purposes?
If all the unauthorized material were to instantly disappear from Kazaa tomorrow, would they still have a business model? By comparison, if, magically, any gun sold going forward could not be used for illegal purposes, would the gun manufacturers still have a business model?
What draws most people to install Kazaa -- is it the promise of downloading copyrighted music and movies for free, or is it for downloading Linux distros and shareware? By comparison, what draws most people to buy a gun -- is it for hunting and home protection, or is it to shoot a gas station attendant?
As you can see, this is a complex situation and it's not solved with simple bromides like "P2P apps are just like gun manufacturers."
Kazaa was developed with the full knowledge that there's a huge demand for pirated music, and Sharman Networks know that this is what drives their business -- they, like you and me, have a firm grasp of the obvious. They have spokespeople and laywers to play the "we're just a provider of the tool" card, as silly as it seems -- and those spokespeople and lawyers are paid to say that. Folks like you and I are smart enough to understand the real story, and we're not on Kazaa's payroll, so it's okay to take a more realistic view.
"The "loan" is repaid from CD sales. And that's the fair trade because we realize that chances are slim to none we're going to sell enough CDs to cover our costs. But this isn't a bank we're talking about. Nobody's going seize your home or car because your CD sold 100 copies."
Very well put. It's not quite like a loan, as the record company takes all the risk.
Many folks around here have asked why bands even want recording contracts now that the universal solution, the Internet, is upon us, and you've covered a good reason: resources. If I did it myself (assuming I had the skillset and the time) and opted instead to take out a loan from the bank myself to fund the production, engineering, sales and marketing of my music, it might indeed be my house at stake.
"(footnote: since we were dropped by our admittedly shitty label we've made decent money selling CDs and songs online at places like iTunes -- but still nowhere near the amount we received from our "free" loan which paid for our last CD's production and then some)."
That's great to hear. How about the unauthorized channels -- is your stuff on the filesharing networks, and do you think it's had a good/neutral/bad effect on your success?
"Well, considering that they don't have any explicit right to reproduce everyone's copyrighted Usenet postings, they'd be really hard pushed to charge for this service anyway. In this case, the freeloading cuts both ways."
There's planty of precedent here -- there are tons of services which provide paid newsfeeds. Even ISPs often have to pay somebody upstream for raw feeds. A decade ago, it was fairly easy to find a good, free newsfeed, but the sheer volume of data involved nowadays has made that very difficult.
"A lot of partial albums for major singers, because some corporate asshat out there thinks that's good marketing."
That's typically due to some asshat composer or songwriter. Remember, multiple people hold copyrights to a typical recorded piece: the record company, sometimes the engineer, the person or people who wrote the lyrics, and the person or people who wrote the music. Generally, you must get each of those people's permission before selling the track online. In the case of an album where the band members wrote the words and tunes, that's not a problem, but it's a performer who gets help writing their stuff, posting the entire album can be a logistical nightmare... and as you've noticed, sometimes it's not possible.
At times, both the record companies and the P2P services have proposed "compulsory licensing" schemes to get around this. A compulsory system would mean that a third party could distribute your stuff without your explicit permission, as long as they paid you for it.
You've phrased it as if ending pricing in "99" is some sort of evil scheme concocted by Apple. The company for which I work produces products which we sell in the US and Canada; we price our stuff for the Canadian market based on what the Canadian market will bear. And, we'll set the suggested price to end in all nines, which means, of course, that it will usually be priced above or below the equivalent US price.
And thousands of other companies do it, too. This is basic Marketing 101 stuff, folks.
Slashdot Mirror
"Is this a hard concept to grasp?"
It must be, as there are still lots more bands that want record labels than have record labels. I hope you were being rhetorical.
One thing we can agree on: It's abundantly clear that Slashdotters know much more about the music industry than, say, those actually in the industry. Pity the music industry won't listen. Makes me wonder if those who are out there actually being successful not following your simple steps -- as well as those who are following your simple steps and finding that it isn't exactly working as planned -- are likewise brimming with ideas for next-generation strategies for SQL deployment across Linux clusters.
"And the rest I would guess are the same as how radio works... but one original and pay the record company every time you sell a copy (play the track)"
Not in the USA. When a song is played on the radio, it's the composer and songwriter who get paid, not the record company.
" It has never really been about music being freely traded. These attacks on p2p is purely a way to stop minor labels from growing and up and coming musicians from doing it on their own."
I think that's too much of a generalization. I've met owners of indie labels who are anti-piracy. If a major loses 10% of their business to piracy, it's just a few layoffs or salary freezes here and there. If you run an indie label, you're paying yourself $20,000 a year, and your income drops 10% due to piracy, it might mean firing one of the six people who work for you, somebody whom you know very well. And from what I've read on the web sites of the various indie record label trade groups, their goal is to have better representation on iTunes, not Kazaa.
Either way, there are tons of outlets on the web for unsigned bands and small labels to get the their stuff out. The traffic of pirated MP3s on the P2P networks tends to mirror the sales in stores. Most people who use Kazaa are there for the latest Eminem or Usher, not some unsigned garage deathcore band from Wisconsin.
"If the cost of production approachs zero, then musicians will not need labels. As it is, the major labels are making as much money as ever before."
Slashdotters have been saying, in effect, "the big labels are history once all the bands discover that the mighty power of the Internet is all they need" for five years now. Meanwhile, companies like Magnatune (which many Slashdotters see as the right way to sell music online) are struggling, while iTunes just hit its 200 millionth download, Universal has launched a digital only label, and Apple and the record companies are having the last laugh. Slashdotters often claim that the record companies just don't get this whole Internet thing, but it seems to me that they get it just fine. Perhaps all it will take is another five years for the Internet to put the record labels out of business, but before that will happen, somebody will need to tell the record labels to stop using the Internet to their advantage.
While many bands who can't get, or don't want a recording contract have used the Internet as a promotional and distribution vehicle, finding success is much, much more than getting the cost of production to zero. The Internet and the P2P will not:
Meanwhile, a record label will.
The Internet is great, but it's not the universal panacea.
" You don't get it."
Oh, please.
"The article spoke of the harm to musicans but doesn't metion even one. Can you imagine an artcile about the impact of a factory closing on its workers, without mentioning even one actual worker who was impacted? I think it's bullshit."
You think what's bullshit? That Canadian musicians have suffered economic harm as a result of piracy? I for one have downloaded several Sarah McGlaughlin (she's a Canadian, even though I'm sure I'm mangling her name) tracks from P2P services instead of buying them. So I'm sure she's lost a buck or two as a result of my actions. I can't be the only one.
"I just want one bit of proof from one musican that he gets this money. Just one."
That's not something that I can give you, because (a) I'm not a Canadian, (b) not a musician, and (c) not in the music industry. Since Bryan Adams and Rush do not frequent this web site, you're just not looking in the right place, sorry. However, I am quite positive that there are web forums out there set up for the use of Canadian musicians, big and small. A few seconds of Google will help you here. You can go directly to the source. If you think it's a Big Lie and that this money isn't actually distributed as it says it is, that'd be quite a story you'd have there. If you think they're lying, I sincerely recommend you research this... if you can discover that it is, that will be big news.
The exact impact of piracy on musicians is something of great debate. Nobody here will be able to give you an exact answer, because nobody knows. Read the propaganda from the record companies ("we'll be going out of business next year!") and from pro-piracy Slashdotters ("piracy actually helps the musician!"), the independent research, and make up your own mind. Trying to tell other Slashdotters that they "don't get it" won't help you in this task.
HTH. HAND.
"That doesn't tell me anything about how much money actual musicians and songwriters have been given."
Did you see the Allocation of funds page? It seems pretty clear:
As you can see, the record company gets the smallest slice of the pie. Performers, composers and songwriters get 85%.
"In the US the record companies hold the copyrights, I'm guessing it's no different in Canada."
In the US, the copyright for the words and music are retained by the lyricist and composer (at least one of whom is often the performer). The copyright on the recording is often shared among some combination of the record company, the producer, and the engineer. At either rate, that's irrelevant to the way in which the levy is distributed.
If you have any other questions, I encourage you to poke around that site a little more.
"I know this has been said before, but I find it hard to understand how the record companies claim millions or billions lost due to piracy. There's no real way to even come close to an actual dollar amount. I'm sure there's some effect, but I have a hard time believing it's as great as the record companies claim."
You're correct. The record companies hire their own analysts and accountants, then there's third party independent research firms who conduct their own analysis, and then there's consumers who have their own gut instincts. If I can make some broad generalizations and summarize:
Record companies: "we're losing billions! It's going to put us out of business! Won't somebody think of the artists! Oh, and the children."
Independent analysts: "there are indeed significant lost sales due to piracy, but not as large as the record companies state."
Slashdot users: "Piracy actually helps the record industry, because I'm providing free advertising. Yeah, I might even go out and buy two copies of a CD after I've warezed it. Oh, and I might go to the concert, too."
The correct answer is, as the math texts state, left to the reader.
"Let's not forget the huge percentage of each CD sale that the record companies take."
Hmm... I've lost you there. Do you have a cite for that? The best data I can find is that the Canadian music industry, as a whole, operates on net margins of about 12%. That's about as well as Logitech and Creative Labs do. Then again, the Vivendi Universal group (a major record label) only managed negative three percent net margin last year, and Time Waner (which includes Warner Music) cleared an 8% net margin.
I often do see people who point out that since a CD costs two bucks to produce and they sell it to the stores for eight bucks, they must be making money hand over fist, but those people are largely idiots who don't have a grasp of the concept of gross margin vs. net margin. So, if you have any data to support the idea of huge profit margins in the recording industry, please post it. The market shows otherwise.
"Does anyone have any real evidence that musicans actually get this money? Everything I've read about the music industry says they get zero."
Yes. Poke around that site if you'd like to learn more. A little knowledge goes a long way.
$28MM (Canadian) has been paid to date, but remember that only Canadian artists and record companies are eligible.
"Digital sharing of copyrighted music in countries which put a tax on CD-Rs, MP3 players, etc. is effectively legal, since you're paying for the priviledge of doing so whether you actually are or not."
Not correct. There might be laws on the book of that country which allow copying under a certain set of circumstances, but the existence of a tarrif or levy does not in itself make piracy legal. It's designed to offset the financial damage purportely suffered by artists, songwriters and the like but doesn't even come close to being a signifant part of their income.
Likewise, if a country charges a tax to pay for fire departments, this does not make arson effectively legal.
"The Canadian way is to pay levys/taxes on everything so we don't have to worry about anything. Healthcare, perscription drugs, and social programs are just a few things that are subsidized or free because of levys and taxes. Sure people like to argue about how well the system works, but last time I checked people don't go backrupt when they get sick here."
I've seen this statement by others before -- basically, "I pay a levy on blank media, so I can go ahead and pirate CDs, since the artist is getting paid."
It is vital to understand that this is not the equivalent of a socialized music industry. The levy, $0.21 per blank CD (about $0.17 in US dollars), is designed to partially compensate for lost income by artists due to piracy, but it doesn't come close to the actual amount lost by composers, songwriters, performers and record companies when one chooses to P2P a CD to avoid purchasing it at the store -- if it did and this were truly a socialized music production system, one could just go to the store and collect CDs for free. The reality is that the production costs for a CD (not including the media, marketing, or any profit, but including the money that the singer, songwriter and performers would lose out on) are typically north of $2 Canadian.
Additionally, only Canadian recording artists and record companies are eligible. Unless you're pirating exclusivly Bryan Adams and Rush, you're not helping them.
Since US citizens do pay taxes and levies but don't have many of the socialized systems that Canadians enjoy, we understand this. For example, we all know that we pay taxes to keep our roads intact, but at the same time, we understand that we can't take a pick-axe to the asphalt on our nearest boulevard without liability -- we can't point to the road tax and tell them to "stuff it," to use your phrase. Canada does have laws regarding personal copying of CDs that are more liberal than those in the US, but it's these laws, and not the levy, that allows you to make those copies.
"As long as people keep comparing good values such as sharing and copying to murder and bloodshed on the high seas, somebody needs to let in the cold harsh light of reality."
The word piracy is an example of a homonym, or more properly, a homograph. It's a fundamental part of the English language. Most people learn about homonyms and homographs in elementary school.
Nobody is comparing software piracy with sea piracy through the use of a homonym. Similarly, nobody is comparing dogs to trees when they use the word "bark," or birds with cowering with "quail," being reasonable with eating cotton candy and looking at pigs when they use the word "fair."
There are hundreds more examples. Surely you learned about this in elementary school. There are plenty of rational, intelligent arguments to make when discussing piracy and intellectual property, but pretending that you have a substandard knowledge of the English language just for the sake of argument is stupid and a waste of time.
You're correct... patents and copyrights have time limits. This is clearly stated in the US constitution. Nonetheless, "intellectual property" is the commonly accepted term.
"How about you keep your end of the deal (copyright only for 14 years, only on books, not on derivatives, and stop harassing my children), then maybe we will consider keeping ours."
This is the "if it was good enough for my forefathers, it's good enough for us" argument; "Shakespeare didn't need copyright laws" also falls under this umbrella.
First, I think you're spending way more effort than is necessary to rationalize piracy. Instead of saying that you're doing it as a social protest because you believe that copyright laws should exist as they did in 1793, why not just not worry about it justifying it to anybody, and simply acknowledge that you'd rather save a few bucks? Lots of people are doing it. You're being frugal with your money by using P2P rather than going to Best Buy... you're not joining the Montgomery Freedom March.
Other than that, arguments such as yours reveal a lack of understanding that laws commonly change as a result of technology. For example, your state did not have a vehicle code 100 years ago (or if it did, it probably covered carriages and horses), but due to the development of the automobile, it's a couple of inches thick by now. Motion pictures weren't covered by copyright until several years after the technology was introduced. That's just part of how society works. Technology advances, and the laws follow.
" To label an act "piracy" implies that it is being sold for profit by the "pirate"."
Perhaps to you, but the relevant dictionary definition (type "dict piracy" in the address bar if you're using Firefox) is the unauthorized reproduction of copyrighted or patented material -- no resale required. That's the commonly understood definition as well.
Occasionally somebody will roll into a Slashdot discussion and erroneously state that it's only piracy if it's resold, or (even more humorously) piracy only includes acts on the high seas. They're usually laughed at. My guess is that they do this in an effort to "sanitize" piracy... perhaps they feel the word has too much of a negative connotation that they'd rather not deal with... somewhat like how some spammers use the phrase "broadcast e-mail" to describe their services. I don't think there's anything to be ashamed of... if you'd rather download that CD via P2P than pay for it, fly the jolly roger proudly. Don't worry about rationalizing what you're doing -- you'd simply rather keep the money for yourself than give it so somebody else. It's perfectly understandable.
"With a staff like Leno's or Letterman's, I bet they have some pretty expensive jokes. Do they sue anyone who repeats them?"
My point exactly. It's their prerogative to set the conditions they wish for their intellectual property. Naturally, trying to enforce a "no reproduction" policy on their jokes would be stupid and unworkable. However, it's much more viable for, say, commercial software.
"So I guess all the video recordings I made with my vcr and let freinds view it because they didn't see the show was against the law. - the only difference is I didn't put them on the internet to share with other folks that didn't see it. what difference does it make if I shared a video tape recording with one friend or a thousand on the internet - you are still breaking the law."
Not correct. Copyright law is long and arcane for a reason; much of it goes into the nature of the nature of the use of copyrighted material. Phrases like "fair use" and "public performance" come into play here, as does the economic impact -- think about it for a few minutes and I'm sure you'll understand the potential difference in economic impact between watching a movie with some friends in the privacy of your home vs. making that movie available for download by thousands of strangers. Additionally, even while some trivial copyright infringement is technically illegal, it's under the radar and not worth enforcing.
By the way, lots of laws work this way. For example, there is certainly a difference between giving a joint to a friend vs. selling a thousand joints to a thousand "friends" whom you don't know; and there's a difference between sneaking a $10 bill out of your mom's purse vs. taking $10,000 from her.
"incase you haven't noticed code can/is considered to be 'intellectual property'. yet for some reason so many people don't love those laws and so something weird, they *give the code away for free*.. how strange.."
Nothing wrong with that. It's your intellectual property; if you want to give it away, that's your prerogative.
It's important to understand that everybody has that right. If I have a piece of intellectual property and I want to give it away, or sell it for $0.50, or $1.00, or a million bucks, or not make it available at all, that's my right as well. Others do not have the moral right to copy it without my will because others might make their own works available for a lower price or even give it away for free. Far too many Slashdotters slide down the slippery slope of "I create or use open source software, thus I have a moral free pass to help myself to intellectual property that's not open source."
Piracy is not part of a free market economy.
"But in these days much of law concerns itself with the government ceding the rights of the people to businesses in order to create a more profitable economy for the owners of those businesses, and the morality of that is questionable."
Copyright law protects us all. Big companies tend to have the money to spend to protect their rights under the law, but the vast majority of copyrights are held by individuals who are certainly not big businesses and simply don't have the resources to defend themselves if some Slashdotter violates their rights in the guise of civil disobedience.
"In your specific case, you defend the rights of broadcasters at the expense of the man who cannot get TV. But, keep in mind that under Federal Law, that man is NOT allowed to broadcast so that TV stations can make money."
I'm not even sure how this relates to the case at hand (downloading TV shows as a substitute for paying for cable), but remember that anybody may apply for a television broadcasting license. There are tons of tiny UHF stations out there. Likewise, it's pretty easy for individuals to get airtime on community access stations. This isn't a case of company's rights vs. individual's rights at all.
"The right of companies to put satellites over my house or fly planes over my house so that I cannot launch planes or model rockets of my own?"
Getting a pilot's license is also fairly easy. It takes hard work, and there are safety requirements, but there are no private enterprises that are preventing the public at large from operating their own planes. I'm not familiar with model rocketry safety rules, but I'm not aware of any private companies that are restricting my rite to fly one.
I think the point that you are implicitly making is that flying a plane, launching a communication satellite, or operating a TV station requires money, and a large company is more likely to have the cash to do so than the average individual. You are absolutely correct, but this is not the same as a large company interfering with my right to do any of these things. Similarly, owning a Ferarri takes more money than most individuals have, whereas I can picture a successful company giving a Ferarri to an executive as a bonus. But if I want a Ferarri of my own, it's entirely up to me -- no private third party company is interfering with my rights to buy that Ferarri.
"I think the RIAA and the music industry should embrace P2P due to the fact that they can not stop it all, I don't belive in downloading music/films I buy them , but people need to adapt and get with the times. I belive the best thing for the music industry to do is release some songs for free and using a bittorrent to allow people to download them... Just my thoughts!"
I agree. The record companies are already starting to do this.
The record companies' practice of releasing free tracks on the iTunes Music Store also appears to be successful. They'll keep doing it if it results in more sales. "Give away your product for free" only works as a business model if there's a potential revenue stream.
"So, the MPAA is putting comercials in the movies, sueing people that might help support the effort for movie sharing."
The MPAA is a trade organization that represents the film studios. If you see an advertisement before a film, that is the choice of the theatre owner, not the film company or the MPAA. If you see an advertisement during a movie, such as product placement, that is the choice of the director and producer, not the film company and certainly not the MPAA.
"Are they hurting for money????? I have not seen any reports on it."
I am not sure how that is relevant. Assume for a second that the MPAA has the same moral rights as you and I to protect their business. Is the morality of taking steps to reduce losses contingent on how much money you make? For example, if you own a store, is it less wrong to install a security system if you're losing money, than if your store is profitable? I see this argument made a lot on Slashdot (even when it's implicit, as appears to be in your post) -- that the better a company or an industry is doing, the less of a moral right they have to take steps to protect their financial interests. This rationalization is not one that we would apply to our own financial situations, so I'm not sure why it keeps coming up.
At any rate, to answer your question, some film studios did well this year, others did not. The MPAA represents many film studios.
The reform that you speak of is best handled by a free market economy (and remember, class, piracy is not part of a free market economy). I don't like ads before my movies, so I go to theatres which don't show them. I don't like cheesy product placements in my films, so I tend to see art house and indie films, which generally do not resort to these tactics.
"I don't understand why their services would be any different. You can use their system to send legal items or illegal items."
No worries, it's easy to understand if you think about it a bit. We'll use eDonkey and FedEx for the purpose of explanation, but you can substitute similar enterprises.
Ask yourself these questions:
As you can see, the key is to understand the difference between the could be and the reality. Sure, it is theoretically possible that eDonkey could be used primarily for legal, authorized traffic, just as FedEx is used primarily used in a law-abiding manner -- but you and I know that's simply not the case. Piracy drives eDonkey.
There are P2P networks that limit themselves solely to content for which permission has been given. You don't see the rightsholders suing them -- in fact, they're striking deals. It's easy, but intellectually dishonest, to frame this as "The MPAA vs. P2P" when it's really the MPAA vs. pirates. If eDonkey had been designed to allow only authorized content, then there would be no legal action being taken.
If you're still not sure of the distinction, think of it this way: the legal action's been taken against the people who are running the hubs, not against eDonkey itself (yet). A better analogy would not be suing FedEx, but suing the guy who's using FedEx to send pirated DVDs.
"A band can now make a very professional recording all on their own, advertise it, and distribute it for next to nothing. The suits just haven't realized it yet."
Most artists haven't realized it yet, either. There are lots more people who want a recording contract than can get one.
While the Internet can be a great tool for individuals, small businesses, and big businesses, it's not going to replace hard work, experience, and cash. A DSL connection in your bedroom is not a substitute for an MBA, an engineering degree, or a big wad of money to pay people who know what they're doing. A web browser won't locate a 24-track recording studio and write checks to pay an engineer, producer, and session musicians. A broadband modem won't mail a CD to every radio station in the country and then call them to make sure they're playing your single. I'm very well aware that many Slashdotters claim that the Internet will put the record companies out of business Real Soon Now, but they've been saying this for more than five years. Meanwhile, interesting experiments like Magnatune are struggling, while Apple and the record companies are doing gangbuster business with the iTunes Music Store and having the last laugh. Who "gets it" more?
"you had Limp Bizkit, relatively unknown newcomers, supporting it (well, rather thankful of the fame it brought them without any advertizing costs), and Metallica, rock band in decline, who trashed the exchange platform, somewhat forgetful of how bootlegs made their band so famous back in the 80s."
Others may jump in to correct me, but my recollection is that Limp Bizkit was already at their apex at the time that they did their Napster-sponsored tour.
"If p2p application makers are held responsible for illegal file-swapping, should not gun makers be held responsible for the illegal use of their products?"
Generally, no. If you're not sure of the difference, ask yourselves these questions:
As you can see, this is a complex situation and it's not solved with simple bromides like "P2P apps are just like gun manufacturers."
Kazaa was developed with the full knowledge that there's a huge demand for pirated music, and Sharman Networks know that this is what drives their business -- they, like you and me, have a firm grasp of the obvious. They have spokespeople and laywers to play the "we're just a provider of the tool" card, as silly as it seems -- and those spokespeople and lawyers are paid to say that. Folks like you and I are smart enough to understand the real story, and we're not on Kazaa's payroll, so it's okay to take a more realistic view.
"The "loan" is repaid from CD sales. And that's the fair trade because we realize that chances are slim to none we're going to sell enough CDs to cover our costs. But this isn't a bank we're talking about. Nobody's going seize your home or car because your CD sold 100 copies."
Very well put. It's not quite like a loan, as the record company takes all the risk.
Many folks around here have asked why bands even want recording contracts now that the universal solution, the Internet, is upon us, and you've covered a good reason: resources. If I did it myself (assuming I had the skillset and the time) and opted instead to take out a loan from the bank myself to fund the production, engineering, sales and marketing of my music, it might indeed be my house at stake.
"(footnote: since we were dropped by our admittedly shitty label we've made decent money selling CDs and songs online at places like iTunes -- but still nowhere near the amount we received from our "free" loan which paid for our last CD's production and then some)."
That's great to hear. How about the unauthorized channels -- is your stuff on the filesharing networks, and do you think it's had a good/neutral/bad effect on your success?
"Well, considering that they don't have any explicit right to reproduce everyone's copyrighted Usenet postings, they'd be really hard pushed to charge for this service anyway. In this case, the freeloading cuts both ways."
There's planty of precedent here -- there are tons of services which provide paid newsfeeds. Even ISPs often have to pay somebody upstream for raw feeds. A decade ago, it was fairly easy to find a good, free newsfeed, but the sheer volume of data involved nowadays has made that very difficult.
"A lot of partial albums for major singers, because some corporate asshat out there thinks that's good marketing."
That's typically due to some asshat composer or songwriter. Remember, multiple people hold copyrights to a typical recorded piece: the record company, sometimes the engineer, the person or people who wrote the lyrics, and the person or people who wrote the music. Generally, you must get each of those people's permission before selling the track online. In the case of an album where the band members wrote the words and tunes, that's not a problem, but it's a performer who gets help writing their stuff, posting the entire album can be a logistical nightmare... and as you've noticed, sometimes it's not possible.
At times, both the record companies and the P2P services have proposed "compulsory licensing" schemes to get around this. A compulsory system would mean that a third party could distribute your stuff without your explicit permission, as long as they paid you for it.
You've phrased it as if ending pricing in "99" is some sort of evil scheme concocted by Apple. The company for which I work produces products which we sell in the US and Canada; we price our stuff for the Canadian market based on what the Canadian market will bear. And, we'll set the suggested price to end in all nines, which means, of course, that it will usually be priced above or below the equivalent US price.
And thousands of other companies do it, too. This is basic Marketing 101 stuff, folks.