# Downloading



## keeperofthegood

How do you get your music?

Multiple Choice Anonymous poll.


----------



## Guest

iTunes, an eMusic.com subscription and the very occasional trip to CD Warehouse.

I get plenty of _legit_, free stuff through industry blogs like http://stereogum.com/. And Mr. Reznor has released a bunch of great free stuff in the past few years.


----------



## Stratin2traynor

The music I buy online is through iTunes. I occasionally buy CD's but rarely anymore. 

I've been burned so many times with artists who put out a radio friendly song that is nothing like the rest of the album. Sometimes not even in the same genre. 

So I use P2P (unpaid) to try out newer artists or new albums by established artists. If I like what I hear and will likely listen to it on a semi-regular basis, I'll buy it from iTunes. If I don't care for it, 95% of the time I hit the delete button. 

I've discovered a lot of new music this way (and consequently spent a lot of money buying catalogues of music!).

I much prefer the test drive P2P method as I call it. I police myself and remember that the people whose music I will enjoy deserve my financial support.

sdsre


----------



## Peter

I use P2P unpaid to check stuff out, then if I enjoy what I've heard, I go see their concert and buy lots of merch. Stuff the artist is more likely make money off of without having to have hands in their pockets to the extent that their albums will.


----------



## torndownunit

I use a mix of everything.


----------



## Eager Beaver

I usually download off of iTunes, but I still like having the physical CD with the lyrics and booklet.


----------



## Diablo

A mix. If its a one-hit wonder, I'll dl p2p unpaid. I'm not paying $20. for one good song and a bunch of filler junk.

If its a half way decent cd (3-4+ good songs) priced fairly (13.99 or less) I'll buy from a bricks and mortar storefront,or from ebay if its a hard to find release.


----------



## Mooh

iTunes, bought CDs.

Fwiw, I've never downloaded illegally, originally because I didn't know how (still don't, though I can figure it out), but now because I don't approve of it.

Peace, Mooh.


----------



## aC2rs

I prefer buying CDs. I usually buy online from Amazon because of the selection and occasionally from a bricks and mortar store. I have recently started downloading from iTunes but only for single songs.


----------



## Robert1950

I downloaded Jimmy Herring's Lifeboat from iTunes a few weeks ago. The other week, I walked into Sonic Boom (Bloor and Bathurst in Toronto) and found volumes 3 and 4 of Warts and All by Moe - 6 CDs for under $25 with tax.


----------



## hollowbody

I used to buy cds by the boatload, probably 4 or 5 a week, for a long time. Even after I started downloading, I'd still buy a few every now and then. Then I switched to buying used cds and did that for quite some time, but nowadays it's all P2P all the time.

I use mostly bit-torrent to download, as I find it's the fastest method and you can find pretty much everything.

I don't feel particularly bad downloading music instead of buying it because: 1) most cds these days aren't worth paying for, and 2) artists make almost nothing from cd sales anyway. 

I ease my conscience by attending as many concerts as I can. Artists tend to make a lot more per ticket off of concert sales than cd sales, so I figure I'm contributing more to the band by stealing their music and paying to see them live than vice versa.


----------



## Don Doucette

I'm all about the iTunes right now, especially since they got rid of DRM, otherwise I purchase vinyl a lot.

Don:smilie_flagge17:


----------



## Rugburn

I think the further away we get from appreciating the entirety or wholeness that the album format offers, the less we're inclined to value the tremendous amount of work that goes into making a great record. I'm sure there are many forum members that recall the first time they replaced their vinyl record with it's CD incarnation. Those album covers looked awfully cramped on those little CD cases didn't they? If CDs somewhat cheapened our sense of quality/value regarding records, what can we say about the veneration , if any, in terms of illegally obtained mp3s? This format doesn't credit the personnel involved, or the studio and dates sessions were recorded on. I love going through friends' vinyl record collections. Whether it's the original Rolling Stones "Sticky Fingers" LP's Andy Warhol designed cover complete with working zipper, or Led Zeppelin's puzzle-like cover to "Physical Graffiti" to name just a couple; there are aspects of the entire package afforded to us that bits and bytes can't touch. I'm not sure what an artist is or isn't earning on a given CD is a fair justification for illegally downloading them, but that's another topic.

Shawn


----------



## torndownunit

Rugburn said:


> I think the further away we get from appreciating the entirety or wholeness that the album format offers, the less we're inclined to value the tremendous amount of work that goes into making a great record. I'm sure there are many forum members that recall the first time they replaced their vinyl record with it's CD incarnation. Those album covers looked awfully cramped on those little CD cases didn't they? If CDs somewhat cheapened our sense of quality/value regarding records, what can we say about the veneration , if any, in terms of illegally obtained mp3s? This format doesn't credit the personnel involved, or the studio and dates sessions were recorded on. I love going through friends' vinyl record collections. Whether it's the original Rolling Stones "Sticky Fingers" LP's Andy Warhol designed cover complete with working zipper, or Led Zeppelin's puzzle-like cover to "Physical Graffiti" to name just a couple; there are aspects of the entire package afforded to us that bits and bytes can't touch. I'm not sure what an artist is or isn't earning on a given CD is a fair justification for illegally downloading them, but that's another topic.
> 
> Shawn


The problem is I can count on one hand that amount of REALLY great ALBUMS. I have bought over the last 5 years. I mean, most of the time I find I am buying albums over 10 years old. There are so many albums released now that as an ALBUM, are weak. They have some good songs, and a ton of filler. It does not motivate me to want to own a physical copy of the album when there are only 2 good songs on it.

Using your Sticky Fingers reference, that was a great album with great packaging as WELL. So the content has to match the packaging. A more recent example was the Queens Of The Stone Age - Songs For the Deaf album. It was a fantastic CD, that was originally packaged with a cool bonus DVD. I gladly bought that album new at a store.

SO in summary, I do download a ton of free music. But anything I listen to a lot and really like, I then buy. Either through iTunes, CD's through Amazon or cd's used. Or ideally when I see the band play. I will NOT support a company like HMV that overcharges for everything, and carries horrible stock to boot.


----------



## Rugburn

torndownunit said:


> The problem is I can count on one hand that amount of REALLY great ALBUMS. I have bought over the last 5 years. I mean, most of the time I find I am buying albums over 10 years old. There are so many albums released now that as an ALBUM, are weak. They have some good songs, and a ton of filler. It does not motivate me to want to own a physical copy of the album when there are only 2 good songs on it.


Part of the problem is that as the industry turns it's back on the album format, the artists involved and signed to labels aren't expected to make records of even quality. Why market something to a consumer base that doesn't really get it or *want* it? Of course, it was the industry that decided to move in this direction in the first place. No wonder you can't find any good new records very often. 

Shawn


----------



## Stratin2traynor

Mooh said:


> iTunes, bought CDs.
> 
> Fwiw, I've never downloaded illegally, originally because I didn't know how (still don't, though I can figure it out), but now because I don't approve of it.
> 
> Peace, Mooh.


I completely understand your point. I also believe that the artist should get paid for their work. But this is the was I see it....

There are a lot of people fighting for my attention as a consumer. If I have a chance to sample something for free versus paying for it in advance, the choice is obvious. Free will always win. There are a ton of artists on my iPod or in my CD collection that would have gone completely unnoticed had it not been for free P2P downloading: 

White Stripes, Big Wreck, The Black Keys, Joe Bonamassa, Doyle Bramhall II, Buckcherry, Ryan Cabrera, Colbie Caillat, J.J. Cale, Chickenfoot, City and Colour, Chris Cornell, Sean Costello, Albert Cummings, Dashboard Confessional, Chris Duarte, The Fall of Troy, Fat Head, Robben Ford, Gov't Mule.....That's just up to "G" 

These are artists that I may have heard on the radio or read about in magazines whose music I sampled by way of free P2P, often times downloading the entire album. I can honestly say that after becoming familiar with and a fan of their music, I've since purchased most of their discographies and plan on attending any concerts that I can.

So I guess my point is this...if you have what you believe is a great product, give it away...(Costco does this all the time with free food samples) and let people absorb it and develop a desire for it. If it's a good product people will eventually pay for it. (I think John Mayer might agree with me on this point)

I think that if an artist expects to be paid for every little thing they do especially when they are starting out, they'll never make it...If no one knows who you are and are unfamiliar with your music, why would they pay for your music or pay to see you in concert? My 2 cents


----------



## hollowbody

Rugburn said:


> I think the further away we get from appreciating the entirety or wholeness that the album format offers, the less we're inclined to value the tremendous amount of work that goes into making a great record. I'm sure there are many forum members that recall the first time they replaced their vinyl record with it's CD incarnation. Those album covers looked awfully cramped on those little CD cases didn't they? If CDs somewhat cheapened our sense of quality/value regarding records, what can we say about the veneration , if any, in terms of illegally obtained mp3s? This format doesn't credit the personnel involved, or the studio and dates sessions were recorded on. I love going through friends' vinyl record collections. Whether it's the original Rolling Stones "Sticky Fingers" LP's Andy Warhol designed cover complete with working zipper, or Led Zeppelin's puzzle-like cover to "Physical Graffiti" to name just a couple; there are aspects of the entire package afforded to us that bits and bytes can't touch. I'm not sure what an artist is or isn't earning on a given CD is a fair justification for illegally downloading them, but that's another topic.
> 
> Shawn


Shawn, I totally agree with you, but like torndownunit said, think of the albums you cited as examples. You don't get albums of the quality of Sticky Fingers and Physical Graffiti everyday. These days, a lot of albums have as little thought put into the packaging and art as goes into the lyrics.

Which isn't to say that there isn't a ton of awesome new music out there. Like Stratin2Traynor said, there's a whole bunch of bands I would have missed entirely if it weren't for P2P. Bands I've grown to love over the last few years solely because I took a chance downloading a band I'd never heard of are: The National, Okkervil River, Deer Tick, Glasvegas and probably dozens and dozens of others. The great thing about P2P is that these are bands that don't or didn't get much, if any airplay. I don't listen to the radio so I would never have heard their music if it weren't for the P2P community.

Speaking of the community, and it truly is a community, there are thousands of music fans out there that make this happen. It's not like these are people who go out of their way to screw musicians, many of them love music more than you or I. Just because they make the music available doesn't mean they don't support the artist by buying their discs and seeing their shows. I'm not speaking of public places like Piratebay or any of the torrent trackers where you can get music as well as viruses and porn. I mean the private sites where there is a sense of community just like there is at this forum. These exist for music, movies, tv, you name it. And on every single site, there are tons of fans who try to spread the word about music and movies they love, in hopes that someone else will love it too and support them.

If anything, these sites are creating more buzz for low-profile bands and getting them heard. This is how smaller indie bands can compete with Avril and Nickleback. Also, the people who are on these sites go to great lengths to preserve the artist's original intent by including hi rez scans of the cover, liner notes and all documentation. 

Not ever music pirate is in it just to screw the man. A lot of them want to help their heroes.


----------



## torndownunit

Rugburn said:


> Part of the problem is that as the industry turns it's back on the album format, the artists involved and signed to labels aren't expected to make records of even quality. Why market something to a consumer base that doesn't really get it or *want* it? Of course, it was the industry that decided to move in this direction in the first place. No wonder you can't find any good new records very often.
> 
> Shawn


Ya it's a vicious circle that's for sure.

I am definitely not saying there aren't great bands out there. I am just saying, even a lot of the newer albums I love I wouldn't consider 'landmark' albums. I grew up listening to 'Classic Rock', great Rockabilly and traditional country, and classic Soul Music. There are very few modern albums I pick up that I could compare to these landmark albums. But take the Metal genre, I would venture to say a LOT of the music being produced is as good as it's ever been or even better. This genre DOES seem very album oriented, and since it's not as mainstream the bands can do that 'untainted'. I think it's a genre that adapts to change a little better because they have always had to.

I think the bottom line is what when the dust clears bands have potential to make money than they COULD have made due to the download technology existing. And I think it can definitely benefit them more when it comes to gigging, which is where a lot of bands make their money.

Another issue, in my opinon, was that CD's aren't a great format. They aren't as portable as they could be, and they don't last as long as they should. Combine that with the fact that an educated consumer knows that even though manufacturing costs for CD's have dropped (in volume) as the manufacturing technology has improved, the costs of CD's have stayed the same or gone up. The "Sale" prices the stores charge are what the normal price of the CD should be. It's the stores and the record labels getting greedy, and the artists never see any of it. While I don't support ripping off an artist, I don't support being ripped off as a consumer either.


----------



## Rugburn

I really always felt CDs were a scam. They were sterile, not "clear" or "Higher fidelity". I s'pose folks here already know my feelimgs about digital recordings. Regardless of the medium, musician's ought to have a meaningful control and a financially rewarding livelihood with their recorded documents. They are paintings and skteches of a sort after all.

Shawn


----------



## Mooh

Stratin2traynor said:


> I completely understand your point. I also believe that the artist should get paid for their work. But this is the was I see it....
> 
> There are a lot of people fighting for my attention as a consumer. If I have a chance to sample something for free versus paying for it in advance, the choice is obvious. Free will always win. There are a ton of artists on my iPod or in my CD collection that would have gone completely unnoticed had it not been for free P2P downloading:
> 
> White Stripes, Big Wreck, The Black Keys, Joe Bonamassa, Doyle Bramhall II, Buckcherry, Ryan Cabrera, Colbie Caillat, J.J. Cale, Chickenfoot, City and Colour, Chris Cornell, Sean Costello, Albert Cummings, Dashboard Confessional, Chris Duarte, The Fall of Troy, Fat Head, Robben Ford, Gov't Mule.....That's just up to "G"
> 
> These are artists that I may have heard on the radio or read about in magazines whose music I sampled by way of free P2P, often times downloading the entire album. I can honestly say that after becoming familiar with and a fan of their music, I've since purchased most of their discographies and plan on attending any concerts that I can.
> 
> So I guess my point is this...if you have what you believe is a great product, give it away...(Costco does this all the time with free food samples) and let people absorb it and develop a desire for it. If it's a good product people will eventually pay for it. (I think John Mayer might agree with me on this point)
> 
> I think that if an artist expects to be paid for every little thing they do especially when they are starting out, they'll never make it...If no one knows who you are and are unfamiliar with your music, why would they pay for your music or pay to see you in concert? My 2 cents


I hear a lifetime's worth of free music via YouTube, MySpace, online radio, gifts, and through friends, but online radio offers the most to me. Most of what I'm interested in is not "popular" by most definitions. For example, I listen to loads of pipe organ music, swing jazz, off the beaten track artists like Bela Fleck, Simon Mayor, Don Ross, and classical. As much as I dig classic rock, I get my fill from societal over exposure, and my lesson studio. Besides, I simply don't have the time to listen to everything I'd like to, never mind make it worthwhile purchasing it. So I buy what interests me, and listen to it intently, even studiously, when there's time.

Peace, Mooh.


----------



## shoretyus

Mooh said:


> I hear a lifetime's worth of free music via YouTube, MySpace, online radio, gifts, and through friends, but online radio offers the most to me. Most of what I'm interested in is not "popular" by most definitions. For example, I listen to loads of pipe organ music, swing jazz, off the beaten track artists like Bela Fleck, Simon Mayor, Don Ross, and classical. As much as I dig classic rock, I get my fill from societal over exposure, and my lesson studio. Besides, I simply don't have the time to listen to everything I'd like to, never mind make it worthwhile purchasing it. So I buy what interests me, and listen to it intently, even studiously, when there's time.
> 
> Peace, Mooh.



Yes I have downloaded but I am with you on that Mooh.... you can click forever. Sounds like we are clicking the same pages too.

I mostly skipped the CD thing. I like the digital audio idea but they still have to come a long way before I start paying Itunes.


----------



## lbrown1

itunes for me.......and P2P for that stuff ya just can't buy

I buy a lot of concert DVD's from the record stores


----------



## david henman

hollowbody said:


> I don't feel particularly bad downloading music instead of buying it because: 1) most cds these days aren't worth paying for, and 2) artists make almost nothing from cd sales anyway.
> I ease my conscience by attending as many concerts as I can. Artists tend to make a lot more per ticket off of concert sales than cd sales, so I figure I'm contributing more to the band by stealing their music and paying to see them live than vice versa.


...seriously, why should anyone feel bad about stealing?

9kkhhd


----------



## hollowbody

david henman said:


> ...seriously, why should anyone feel bad about stealing?
> 
> 9kkhhd


Ok, let's crunch some numbers. I've spent about $1500 on concerts so far this year. I'm pretty sure the artists I went to see are seeing much more of my money this way than they would if I spent $1500 on cds instead.


----------



## Spikezone

Store-bought CD's, CD's bought from Indie artists at shows, eBay and CDBaby.
-Mikey


----------



## allthumbs56

I used to download using whatever my son had on the computer (Napster and then something else) when I was learning new stuff for the band. 99.9% of the time it was stuff I had on record or cd already but just wanted the quick version on the computer.It's been a long time since I've downloaded anything though and the old computer got stolen a couple years ago so I guess I'm out of the loop.

Just out of curiosity what is the favoured "Free" P2P software these days and why?


----------



## Jeff Flowerday

I buy CDs. Mostly used and a little new.

I buy Vinyl for older stuff I can find on CD and rip them 24bit/48khz.

I love the sound of Vinyl but can't be bothered to throw an album on. I'm just too much of a techie to not rip it and quickly fire it up on my squeezebox.


----------



## hollowbody

allthumbs56 said:


> Just out of curiosity what is the favoured "Free" P2P software these days and why?


Bit-torrent is probably the most used software, and has the widest range of available stuff to download. Note: Bit-torrent is a protocol, there are several BT clients that you can use. uTorrent is regarded as the best.

The reasons BT is so good is because downloading software, music, etc. is just a matter of browsing a webpage and then clicking on the links of whatever it is you want to download. Super easy! 

Also, on the legal side, BT slices up what you're downloading into hundreds or thousands of smaller chunks, each of which on its own doesn't actually mean anything, so you're only ever sharing one small chunk of the greater file, which is a legal loophole in the sharing thingie (though your IP can still be tracked, unless you really don't want them to and set up a portal or something like that to hide behind).

In BT's defense, it was created to allow people to share large files easily. One of the reasons I use it is to share .wavs of recordings or recording sessions with full audio data, which can be huge. Video editors also would find it useful. Much easier than using FTP or something like Dropbox.

There's lots of other reasons, but that's the gist of it.


----------



## 4345567

My preference is to buy direct from an artist at a show. Where that's not practical, I'll usually buy a CD from one of my local independent retailers. Where that's not practical, I'll usually order online from Chapters.ca or Amazon.ca. Sometimes I'll use iTunes or eMusic.

I used to use iTunes more, but figured out that by spending about the same amount or maybe a dollar or two more I can buy a hard copy of most CD's, complete with artwork, case, liner notes, and no DRM restrictions. So, I've actually shifted from CD's to paid downloads and then back to CD's.

As for "free" P2P, even though it's legal in Canada and we all pay for it through blank media levies, I find it very inconvenient. I've dabbled with it in trying to find things that weren't commercially available, but I never know what I'm really getting, I usually spend way too long trying to find what I need, the quality is always uncertain, etc. I generally find it a PITA.


----------



## 4345567

One slightly interesting story related to "free" P2P and the way the music industry "works"....

When Brian Eno released his back catalog on CD a few years ago, I went to my local retailer to purchase a couple of the reissued CD's. Of course, when I got there and saw them, I found out they were "copy protected". There was a warning on the CD that I wouldn't be able to play it on my computer without using their special proprietary software and that I couldn't load it on to my portable device. That was a major pain, since I always loaded CD's into iTunes and used my iTunes player frequently. The solution? I just went home and downloaded it on a P2P network with no restrictions instead of forking out cash for a crippled version that wouldn't work on my system. Great protection scheme, guys.


----------



## hollowbody

nkjanssen said:


> One slightly interesting story related to "free" P2P and the way the music industry "works"....
> 
> When Brian Eno released his back catalog on CD a few years ago, I went to my local retailer to purchase a couple of the reissued CD's. Of course, when I got there and saw them, I found out they were "copy protected". There was a warning on the CD that I wouldn't be able to play it on my computer without using their special proprietary software and that I couldn't load it on to my portable device. That was a major pain, since I always loaded CD's into iTunes and used my iTunes player frequently. The solution? I just went home and downloaded it on a P2P network with no restrictions instead of forking out cash for a crippled version that wouldn't work on my system. Great protection scheme, guys.


Yeah, this was a method the major labels thought would circumvent downloading. A few albums I bought had it on there, like the 1st Velvet Revolver album. I guess they just didn't realize how _huge_ portable media players were going to get and how the mp3 has taken over music (at a substantial loss of quality, but no one seems to care).

I actually bought that Velvet Revolver album and then, like you, had to download it in order to put it on my iPod. What a PITA. 

Another genius method was to leave out valuable bits of info that wouldn't necessarily be audible played through a stereo on cd, but would render a ripped mp3 version unplayable. Artists didn't like this one, and I don't blame them. It was pretty obvious that they would rather someone hear their music in its entirety for free than pay to hear a compromised version of it.


----------



## Milkman

The poll does not include "I buy CDs". Edit. Whoops.



Downloading is not the problem. The problem is the perception by many people that if you can download something without paying for it, it's free for the taking.

Unless the owner of the intellectual property has authorized the download, it's theft.

I own an iPod and I love it. There is not one song or movie on the device that I didn't buy.


----------



## 4345567

Milkman said:


> The poll does not include "I buy CDs".


I think "offline retailer", "offline direct from artist" and "yard sales" refer to CD's, LP's, cassettee, 8-track, etc.



> Unless the owner of the intellectual property has authorized the download, it's theft.


Not in the legal sense, it isn't. In Canada, as long as we're talking about music downloaded for personal use, it's not even copyright infringement. Everytime you buy blank media, you pay a fee for the permission to do that. It's a compulsary licensing scheme. It's not an uncommon feature of copyright law, and certainly not without precedent.


----------



## Milkman

nkjanssen said:


> I think "offline retailer", "offline direct from artist" and "yard sales" refer to CD's, LP's, cassettee, 8-track, etc.
> 
> 
> 
> Not in the legal sense, it isn't. In Canada, as long as we're talking about music downloaded for personal use, it's not even copyright infringement. Everytime you buy blank media, you pay a fee for the permission to do that. It's a compulsary licensing scheme. It's not an uncommon feature of copyright law, and certainly not without precedent.




Yup. Sorry about that. My eyesight (even with the reading glasses) isn't improving with age.


As for it not being technically against the law, OK. I'm no lawyer. Let's just say, that I have a moral issue with downloading music for free, knowing full well that the artist is not benefiting from his (her) creation.


just because I can get away with it?


----------



## 4345567

Milkman said:


> As for it not being technically against the law, OK. I'm no lawyer. Let's just say, that I have a moral issue with downloading music for free, knowing full well that the artist is not benefiting from his (her) creation.
> 
> 
> just because I can get away with it?



It's not just a technicality. It's a compulsary licensing scheme. Blank media levies are collected and distributed to artists as compensation for the private copying permissions contained in the Copyright Act. The alternative is to make private copying a violation of copyright, let artists pursue private copiers themselves, don't collect blank media levies and don't distribute those to artists. That's a perfectly valid approach as well. It's the one taken in the U.S. I'm not sure either scheme really works as well as it could, but after having observed the development of each over the past 10 years or so, I think ours is a bit better.

That said, I generally find P2P networks a PITA. So, when I buy blank media, I'm essentially paying a license fee for something that I don't really do.


----------



## Milkman

nkjanssen said:


> It's not just a technicality. It's a compulsary licensing scheme. Blank media levies are collected and distributed to artists as compensation for the private copying permissions contained in the Copyright Act. The alternative is to make private copying a violation of copyright, let artists pursue private copiers themselves, don't collect blank media levies and don't distribute those to artists. That's a perfectly valid approach as well. It's the one taken in the U.S. I'm not sure either scheme really works as well as it could, but after having observed the development of each over the past 10 years or so, I think ours is a bit better.
> 
> That said, I generally find P2P networks a PITA. So, when I buy blank media, I'm essentially paying a license fee for something that I don't really do.


In most cases these days, people don't buy blank media, or at least not in quantities comparable to the amount of music being downloaded for free.


If someone buys a stack of CDRs or whatever costing $20. and downloads a couple of thousand tunes..... well say goodbye to a lot of argent.


----------



## 4345567

Milkman said:


> In most cases these days, people don't buy blank media, or at least not in quantities comparable to the amount of music being downloaded for free.
> 
> If someone buys a stack of CDRs or whatever costing $20. and downloads a couple of thousand tunes..... well say goodbye to a lot of argent.


They take that into consideration in setting the levy. In theory, it should represent fair compensation for the license. Fair as determined by the Copyright Board anyway. I don't know the latest numbers off hand, but well over $200 million has been collected and distributed so far. It's certainly open for someone to disagree with the amount of the levies or the way the system is being run, but I don't think any of those disagreements make the system tantamout to theft. If it's theft, it's theft instituted by the government and sanctioned by the courts. Much like taxes, I suppose.


----------



## shoretyus

nkjanssen said:


> Blank media levies are collected and distributed to artists as compensation for the private copying permissions contained in the Copyright Act.


Where can we get some of that money to produce some new media?


----------



## Milkman

nkjanssen said:


> They take that into consideration in setting the levy. In theory, it should represent fair compensation for the license. Fair as determined by the Copyright Board anyway. I don't know the latest numbers off hand, but well over $200 million has been collected and distributed so far. It's certainly open for someone to disagree with the amount of the levies or the way the system is being run, but I don't think any of those disagreements make the system tantamout to theft. If it's theft, it's theft instituted by the government and sanctioned by the courts. Much like taxes, I suppose.



Listen, if someone downloads thousands of tunes and buys $10 or $20 dollars worth of blank CDs (which he probably uses to save pirated software) that a pretty thin rationalization for the fact that the artists got diddly.

Not to mention the fact that even if you're a member of Socan, if you sell your product independently, you get none of the monies acrued from the levy you discuss.

Right is right and wrong is wrong.


----------



## Guest

Milkman said:


> Listen, if someone downloads thousands of tunes and buys $10 or $20 dollars worth of blank CDs (which he probably uses to save pirated software) that a pretty thin rationalization for the fact that the artists got diddly.


Taxes don't work that way. _Everyone_ pays a little and you hope it adds up to _enough_. No one person pays the full amount. I'm staring at a stack of 100 DVD-Rs I had to buy to burn beta versions of our software for our field engineers to hand out to customers. Those DVD-Rs are being used by a business for moving data around, not storing downloaded music. And yet my company paid the levy on them.



> Not to mention the fact that even if you're a member of Socan, if you sell your product independently, you get none of the monies acrued from the levy you discuss.


From the Canadian Private Copying Collective's website, the group responsible for redistributing the tariff collected:



> Payments are not made by CPCC directly but are routed through existing organizations. They are routed through CPCC’s member collectives and their constituent groups. To expedite payment, copyright holders are encouraged to ensure they are registered with the relevant organization(s). Queries related to registration or individual payments should be addressed to these entities directly.


It then goes on to list SOCAN as one of the members. If you're not getting a cheque it means that SOCAN is tracking _zero_ (or near zero) use of your material -- that's not just sales, but _plays_ as well. Go complain to SOCAN that their tracking and distribution system is flawed if you think you're missing out on money. If I was to guess at SOCAN's redistribution model it's going to be based on percentage activity for copyright holders over the past pay period. So if you have copyright holder that's been played 10x more than any other SOCAN member over the past pay period they're going to get 10% of the lump sum SOCAN got from the CPCC.

This is exactly how SOCAN deals with the public performance tariffs they collect.

I'll wager a good bet that if you're selling privately it means you don't represent any significant volume -- you haven't got a distribution deal, right? Or you've _chosen_ to live outside the system SOCAN and the retail and pay-for-play people have set up. So your slice of the pie will round to zero regardless. Sucks, but that's how it is. You could even say if you're selling privately you're wasting your time submitting your works to SOCAN. Their royalty collection system does nothing for you.



> Right is right and wrong is wrong.


Correct. And it's our government who decides what is right when it comes to copyright. _Especially_ when it comes to copyright because it's an area of law that _only_ exists thanks to government-created concepts -- it is _distinct_, and dealt with distinctly in the law and courts, from theft of physical goods or money. If you don't like the system you have ways to change it: vote, call your MP, let the Copyright Board know you think the levy approach needs to be repealed. But as it stands now: Canadians downloading _music_ are living in a gray area your government created at the request of the agencies like the CIRA -- we all pay the tax the CIRA had them create arguing it would offset the damage from private copying. (Do note the emphasis on music, the levy does _not_ cover video or software) Getting mad at them for living within in the system is like driving 50 km/h in the left lane on the 401 and shaking your fist at all "the crazy teenagers" passing you at 100 km/h -- they're moving faster than _you_ want them too, but not faster than your government allows.


----------



## 4345567

iaresee said:


> Taxes don't work that way....(etc.)


I was going to respond, but I think you summed the issue it up very well, iaresee. Thanks. You saved me a lot of typing.


----------



## Guest

nkjanssen said:


> I was going to respond, but I think you summed the issue it up very well, iaresee. Thanks. You saved me a lot of typing.


Man, I wasn't going to say squat in this thread. I can never keep my mouth shut.

I predict this thread will end badly. They always do.


----------



## hollowbody

iaresee said:


> Man, I wasn't going to say squat in this thread. I can never keep my mouth shut.
> 
> I predict this thread will end badly. They always do.


I dunno, it's made it to page 5 without anyone getting too pissed off.

I understand some people's opinion that there is a distinction between right and wrong and that downloading is wrong. I respect their opinion, but I will continue to download at my discretion and support the artists I like in my own way.

Again, I think it's the music industry who has it ass-backwards here. For too long, they put too much stock in record sales, and when that well dried up, they were ill-prepared to deal with the way the modern world works. It's hard to put a price on an intangible like an mp3 as opposed to a physical disc, but mp3s have been around for almost 20 years. It's not like digital media sprang up one day and no one saw it coming.

In a sense, much like the auto industry is having to re-think their approach to building cars and making money, the music industry needs to do the same thing.


----------



## mhammer

Personally, I buy very little music. Largely because I don't actually listen to music much anymore. I might pick up a cd in the delete bin now and then, but the whole thing of waiting for a particular artist and deliberately seeking out their oeuvre has pretty much taken a permanent vacation from my life.

Frankly, I think its because there is too much damn music. Waaaaaayyyyyy too much. And too damn many youth thinking that somehow they ought to be able to make a decent living doing something that should properly be the domain of maybe 0.1% of the population. It becomes a bit like every second person wanting to be a dentist, and then bitching about how they can't make a decent living as a dentist because of all the undercutting and free services.

I suppose if one puts blinders on and can pretend like music began three months ago, then it is possible to identify what merits listening to and purchase by some means. But if one's knowledge of music goes back 1000 years, and spans all cultures and forms, AND you happen to have a life which would preclude listening to music 24/7, just how in the heck do you make decisions about what to listen to and how? If my "music" includes Was/Not Was, Javanese gamelan music, Eddie Lang, bushmen of the Ituri forest, Charles Ives, and Palestrina, why should any single medium be expected to cater to all of that? 

Perhaps equally important, why should any listener feel enough of a sense of obligation to artists to "support" them? If "my music" is made entirely by tattooed people my own age who are still touring and using it as their primary revenue stream, I guess my attention might be held by the notion of fair compensation, although it might just as easily not be if my tastes are fickle and driven by fashion and zeitgeist. If "my music" tends to be made principally by those to whom there is nary a hope of providing any compensation to them or their descendants, then "supporting" music tends not to enter my consciousness much either.


----------



## Milkman

iaresee said:


> Taxes don't work that way. _Everyone_ pays a little and you hope it adds up to _enough_. No one person pays the full amount. I'm staring at a stack of 100 DVD-Rs I had to buy to burn beta versions of our software for our field engineers to hand out to customers. Those DVD-Rs are being used by a business for moving data around, not storing downloaded music. And yet my company paid the levy on them.
> 
> 
> From the Canadian Private Copying Collective's website, the group responsible for redistributing the tariff collected:
> 
> 
> 
> It then goes on to list SOCAN as one of the members. If you're not getting a cheque it means that SOCAN is tracking _zero_ (or near zero) use of your material -- that's not just sales, but _plays_ as well. Go complain to SOCAN that their tracking and distribution system is flawed if you think you're missing out on money. If I was to guess at SOCAN's redistribution model it's going to be based on percentage activity for copyright holders over the past pay period. So if you have copyright holder that's been played 10x more than any other SOCAN member over the past pay period they're going to get 10% of the lump sum SOCAN got from the CPCC.
> 
> This is exactly how SOCAN deals with the public performance tariffs they collect.
> 
> I'll wager a good bet that if you're selling privately it means you don't represent any significant volume -- you haven't got a distribution deal, right? Or you've _chosen_ to live outside the system SOCAN and the retail and pay-for-play people have set up. So your slice of the pie will round to zero regardless. Sucks, but that's how it is. You could even say if you're selling privately you're wasting your time submitting your works to SOCAN. Their royalty collection system does nothing for you.
> 
> 
> Correct. And it's our government who decides what is right when it comes to copyright. _Especially_ when it comes to copyright because it's an area of law that _only_ exists thanks to government-created concepts -- it is _distinct_, and dealt with distinctly in the law and courts, from theft of physical goods or money. If you don't like the system you have ways to change it: vote, call your MP, let the Copyright Board know you think the levy approach needs to be repealed. But as it stands now: Canadians downloading _music_ are living in a gray area your government created at the request of the agencies like the CIRA -- we all pay the tax the CIRA had them create arguing it would offset the damage from private copying. (Do note the emphasis on music, the levy does _not_ cover video or software) Getting mad at them for living within in the system is like driving 50 km/h in the left lane on the 401 and shaking your fist at all "the crazy teenagers" passing you at 100 km/h -- they're moving faster than _you_ want them too, but not faster than your government allows.



Lots of rationalization in my opinion.


----------



## Rugburn

Digital media sucks big time. It's convenient, cheap and is a fantastic format for destroying the original quality of analogue recordings. It's also easier to steal than a record, tape or disc. People have found all sorts of self-justifying reasons for downloading films, music and software for "free". Yes, these large corporations seized on this digital revolution when it served them well. Now when it's biting them in the ass they're chasing average citizens down and suing them for ludicrous amounts of money. It was with greed and a lack of forsight that many companies embraced all manner of digital media without considering the detriment to the very people that create it (not to mention their own fortunes). If someone wishes to download media without paying for it, that's their decision. Just please don't expect me to view this as sticking it to "The Man". There are many, many people involved in the making of film, music and software media. Take a look at all the names in the closing credits of films, TV shows and liner notes. It's not just the artist that we should consider when we claim to support thier work "in our own way". Wouldn't I LOVE to support so many of the people and businesses I owe money to every day of my life "in my own way". Maybe the next time I'm out at the bar and I'm ready to settle up, I'll offer to support the establishment "in my own way". I don't want to rant on or offend, but this is specious self-serving logic that all too many people subscribe to.

Shawn


----------



## Milkman

Rugburn said:


> Digital media sucks big time. It's convenient, cheap and is a fantastic format for destroying the original quality of analogue recordings. It's also easier to steal than a record, tape or disc. People have found all sorts of self-justifying reasons for downloading films, music and software for "free". If someone wishes to download media without paying for it, that's their decision. Just please don't expect me to view this as sticking it to "The Man". There are many, many people involved in the making of film, music and software media. Take a look at all the names in the closing credits of fims, TV shows and liner notes. It's not just the artist that we should consider when we claim to support thie work "in our own way". Wouldn't I LOVE to support so many of the people and businesses I owe money to every day of my life "in my own way". Maybe the next time I'm out at the bar and I'm ready to settle up, I'll offer to support the establishment "in my own way". I don't want to rant on or offend, but this is specious self-serving logic that all too many people subscribe to.
> 
> 
> 
> Shawn


Thank you. We seem to be on the same page.


I hear lots of rationalization in this thread for screwing our fellow musicians.


I have a clear conscience. If I didn't pay for a song, I don have it.

If others can sleep at night and can explain to their kids why they download all that free music, so be it.


----------



## 4345567

Milkman said:


> I have a clear conscience. If I didn't pay for a song, I don have it.



Do you listen to the radio?


----------



## Guest

Milkman said:


> Lots of rationalization in my opinion.


Sigh. And here's where the thread ends. We could have a perfectly nice conversation about the details of Canadian Copyright Laws and where our country should take them. I think we've even had this exact conversation before on this board, with this exact type of response when people start discussing the _legality_ of things and not the _morality_ of things.

Pity.

It's this kind of response that ends these threads. And no doubt the sort of attitude law makers have to wade through to figure out what to do about copyright laws in Canada. I don't envy them their job that's for sure.

Milkman, Rugburn: why not propose some alternatives for us to discuss?

Do you like the way it's done in the U.S.? They have no levy, so there's no impetus in a lawsuit to consider that the copyright holders have been equitably compensated already (that's what makes music sharing lawsuits in Canada hard to bring to judgment). But then, there's also no way to collect on incredibly high judgments because our society has done away with debtors prison.

If we keep the levy system how do you propose bring the fringe copyright holders, the ones who are living outside the SOCAN and retail-pay systems, into the compensation scheme?

Should we consider the other industries in the levy? Software? Video? Should we place a levy on internet connections and redistribute that? Blanket licensing for all things that can be represented in 1's and 0's as long as they're copied for private use? What would the levy need to be to make it a reasonable solution?

Should we make copyright infringement a non-tort offense punishable by jail time perhaps?

If you were going to write the new copyright bill, how would you handle it?


----------



## Guest

nkjanssen said:


> Do you listen to the radio?


Ahh, that's a really difficult parallel to make. The radio _pays_ the copyright holders for playing their songs. Some pay out of coffers filled by tax dollars (the public radio model...this would be the CBC) and some pay out of coffers filled by advertising dollars (just about every other radio station other than the CBC).


----------



## hollowbody

Rugburn said:


> Digital media sucks big time. It's convenient, cheap and is a fantastic format for destroying the original quality of analogue recordings. It's also easier to steal than a record, tape or disc. People have found all sorts of self-justifying reasons for downloading films, music and software for "free". Yes, these large corporations seized on this digital revolution when it served them well. Now when it's biting them in the ass they're chasing average citizens down and suing them for ludicrous amounts of money. It was with greed and a lack of forsight that many companies embraced all manner of digital media without considering the detriment to the very people that create it (not to mention their own fortunes). If someone wishes to download media without paying for it, that's their decision. Just please don't expect me to view this as sticking it to "The Man". There are many, many people involved in the making of film, music and software media. Take a look at all the names in the closing credits of films, TV shows and liner notes. It's not just the artist that we should consider when we claim to support thier work "in our own way". Wouldn't I LOVE to support so many of the people and businesses I owe money to every day of my life "in my own way". Maybe the next time I'm out at the bar and I'm ready to settle up, I'll offer to support the establishment "in my own way". I don't want to rant on or offend, but this is specious self-serving logic that all too many people subscribe to.
> 
> Shawn


Just to be clear, when I say "in my own way," what I meant was to attend concerts, where the artists make much more off the face value of the ticket than they would off any cd or mp3 they sell. I attend dozens of concerts a year, and yes, I do sleep comfortably knowing that the artists I enjoy and support are gainfully employed because they are out there on the road playing their music, not hoping to sell 1,000,000 copies of their record and then not be seen for 2 years.

I think the current trend in music will separate the wheat from the chaff. Back in the day, bands like Led Zeppelin toured constantly, honing their skills before they even thought about putting out a record. These days, it seems every Tom, Dick and Harry with the right look can get deal, have a ludicrous lump sum forwarded to them and proceed to put together a derivative album which they'll support by lip-synching to for a year on tour. 

Musicians seem to have stopped being musicians and that I will never support. Not that I'm rushing to download a Britney Spears album, but I, for one, am more than happy if she doesn't sell a single record because her fans are downloading them instead. She and her ilk don't deserve to call themselves musicians and earn a living doing it. Hopefully these "acts" will go the way of the dodo soon enough.

As for digital media resulting in a blasé attitude towards quality, yes, you're absolutely right and I completely agree with you. Fortunately, there's been a real push for lossless formats and FLAC and Apple lossless are beginning to see a higher demand. I don't use the iTunes store, but I keep hearing about lossless becoming an option there, which it should. If I were to pay to download music, I would only accept a lossless format. Paying to download a 128kbs mp3 in order to burn it onto cd to archive is just plain pointless. 

It's not so much that digital media has had a detrimental effect on quality, it's just that internet speeds are only now starting to catch up. A few years ago, when you'd have to wait an hour to download a CD in mp3 and 4 or 5 to download one in FLAC, it made sense people shifted towards mp3. Now that people have access to internet connections capable of 1000k throughput, it makes sense that the demand for lossless has gone up.


----------



## hollowbody

iaresee said:


> Ahh, that's a really difficult parallel to make. The radio _pays_ the copyright holders for playing their songs. Some pay out of coffers filled by tax dollars (the public radio model...this would be the CBC) and some pay out of coffers filled by advertising dollars (just about every other radio station other than the CBC).


Yup, just like bar your cover band is playing at pays to license the songs you're playing so _you_ don't have to.

I wonder if cover bands would exist if _they_ had to pay to play?


----------



## 4345567

iaresee said:


> Ahh, that's a really difficult parallel to make.


Personally, I listen to a lot of radio. I don't pay for it, and the artist may or may not get paid for the "play", dending on the station and whether SOCAN's tracking catches it.

If you privately copy a song by downloading on a P2P network, you don't pay for it, and the artist may or may not get paid for the copying depending on the formulas used to distribute the blank media levy. Of course, those formulas don't depend on tracking, but both distribution schemes have formulas that attempt to compensate artists for use of their works, and both schemes are imperfect.

I see a pretty good parallel.


----------



## 4345567

iaresee said:


> Sigh. And here's where the thread ends. We could have a perfectly nice conversation about the details of Canadian Copyright Laws and where our country should take them. I think we've even had this exact conversation before on this board, with this exact type of response when people start discussing the _legality_ of things and not the _morality_ of things.
> 
> Pity.


I completely agree. The whole nature of copyright and how it has, and should, evolve to deal with technological advancements is a fascinating and timely issue, full of both practical and philosophical conundrums. It's a matter that is ripe for insightful and intelligent discussion. It's unfortunate that the discussion so often just degenerates into mud slinging and hurling of insults and accusations.


----------



## Guest

Milkman said:


> Thank you. We seem to be on the same page.


You two do seem to have some shared morals.



> I hear lots of rationalization in this thread for screwing our fellow musicians.


What you heard from me was a discussion of the laws of our country. There was no rationalization, only fact. There was no rationalization because there were no _actions_ discussed in post.



Milkman said:


> If others can sleep at night and can explain to their kids why they download all that free music, so be it.


You're mixing _morality_ and _legality_ here and trying to call them one and the same.

Discussion of these matters does no implicate anyone in a crime or tort offense.

That up there is the big reason these threads seem to take a dive IMO. A few people wander in waving their big Sticks of Morality and proclaiming their morals to be The Only Way To Live. And very soon it all devolves into something very, very personal.

When you start to imply that anyone who raises their children with a different set of morals than you is wrong, or bad or evil you're getting into that realm of personal attacks that's hard to shrug off. You're baiting.

I'm asking that we steer away from this.

I sleep well at night because I'm an active participant in our country. Because I love that I can discuss the legal system I live within without being labeled a criminal for doing so. That questioning our government is a noble and respected activity that doesn't end up with men in black suits at my door wanting to haul me off to Re-Education Camp. That our system evolves and I can take an active role in that evolution. I sleep well at night knowing I will teach my children to know, understand and respect the laws of the country they live in.

Also: I don't give much thought to what you and your _moral_ compass thinks I should be teaching my children. I teach them the law, and my set of morals. And I don't expect you to share the morals part of your life with me. I do expect we share the law part.


----------



## Guest

nkjanssen said:


> Personally, I listen to a lot of radio. I don't pay for it, and the artist may or may not get paid for the "play", dending on the station and whether SOCAN's tracking catches it.
> 
> If you privately copy a song by downloading on a P2P network, you don't pay for it, and the artist may or may not get paid for the copying depending on the formulas used to distribute the blank media levy. Of course, those formulas don't depend on tracking, but both distribution schemes have formulas that attempt to compensate artists for use of their works, and both schemes are imperfect.
> 
> I see a pretty good parallel.


That is a good point. There is a reimbursement scheme in both cases. I suppose the difference is that radio play compensation is directly related to radio play, whereas download pay compensation is related to radio play and retail outlet sales. Both algorithms are flawed, but the download one seems worse off.

The alternative would be what? Government-sanctioned sharing sites that track the downloads so the compensation ratios are accurate? Legislation that requires download sites to report in download rates for accurate redistribution?

Tough call. It'd be interesting to see if anyone's studied the assumption that the most popular radio and retail music is also the most popular downloaded music.


----------



## mhammer

I still love telling this story.

Around 1977 or or so, I was living in Hamilton, near McMaster. I answered an ad for some audio equipment, and went to this guy's house, near where Main and King pass by the highway. If memory serves, the guy was selling some tube-based Dynaco stuff dirt cheap, or maybe I was selling him some Dynaco stuff I had bought dirt cheapfrom a guy in Dundas. I forget.

The guy was clearly a rabid audiophile. *How* rabid? Well he had made perfect large diameter holes in his living room floor to sink concrete tubes through, down into the basement, so he could mount some 12" woofers into the top of the concrete tubes. The tubes provided a "perfect" enclosure for good solid bass, and the more than 10ft length he attained with the tubes put the resonant frequency waaaaaaaaayyyyy down low, without necessitating a big awkward cabinet in the listening area. That rabid.

As we're talking, following the exchange of goods and cash, the guy motions to everything in the listening area and tells me "Some day, though, this will all be obsolete. You'll get your music on a digital memory chip, and listen to that." And I'm thinking, "Yeah, right buddy. What a nutbar!"

That was 1977. Of course, some 32 years later, and clearly the guy was way ahead of his time, but spot on. 

When any of you have a chance, pop into your local university library and take a peek into the Journal of the Acoustical Society of America. They have an intermittent "review of acoustical patents" every few issues that runs the gamut of stuff from hearing aids to padding for car floors to kids' cheesy keyboards to devices for measuring earthquake tremors to speaker designs to sound compression algorithms and more. If it has anything at all to do with sound and vibration, and somebody thinks they had a brilliant idea, it shows up there. Very often you can see new ideas from manufacturers a good half dozen years before the products hit the market.


----------



## Guest

hollowbody said:


> I wonder if cover bands would exist if _they_ had to pay to play?


I always find it interesting how many cover bands operate without knowledge of the royalty system -- that the venues they play are actually paying licensing fees so they can play covers.

I remember when Crowbar opened in Toronto. It started out being an all-types-of-band bar. When I was booking The Apollo Effect in there I had a conversation with the owner. He was asking about draw and how many people we expected to pull in. Some how the conversation steered away and he mentioned to me that he really liked cover bands because they always drew big, but he had to stop booking them because he didn't want to pay the SOCAN tariffs. He didn't know he'd have to pay them.


----------



## Rugburn

Well Ian, I didn't realize I was participating in a legal debate with you and Milkman. My point was regarding people deciding for themselves how best to support artists. As I stated before, there's more to supporting an artist than showing up at a concert. Let's not even talk about how much of one's ticket price has nothing to do with an artist's income. How the Americans are dealing with this is far more critical to the future of the industry, than how we propose to deal with it here in Canada. I appreciate your point about our laws here and I never questioned that, but this issue is global in scale. Frankly, I don't really see this as all that hostile a discusion. Fact is many folks who make movies, television and music for a living, are in a situation where their livelihoods are in real jeopardy. Add to this funding cuts to the arts across the board, and the sense that all of this ought to be free entertainment is a serious threat. Pretty soon farmers and artists will be singing along side by side about the good ole' days when they had jobs. 9kkhhd


----------



## 4345567

iaresee said:


> That is a good point. There is a reimbursement scheme in both cases. I suppose the difference is that radio play compensation is directly related to radio play, whereas download pay compensation is related to radio play and retail outlet sales. Both algorithms are flawed, but the download one seems worse off.


Agreed that the download formula is using a proxy to attempt to estimate actual downloads, whereas the radio play formula tracks actual consumption. SOCAN's tracking is still far from perfect, though. In the past few years, it's gotten much better with commercal radio, but there is still some commercial radio that is only tracked by sampling. Non-commercial radio (campus and community) is also primarily, if not wholly, tracked by sampling. That actually what I listen to most of the time. Accordingly, I likely listen to many songs on the radio that completely fall through the cracks and don't result in any pay for the artist.



> The alternative would be what? Government-sanctioned sharing sites that track the downloads so the compensation ratios are accurate? Legislation that requires download sites to report in download rates for accurate redistribution?


Interesting idea. It should be possible to institute some kind of download tracking model, but the users would have to buy in. If there was some benefit over the "wild west" of current P2P networks, maybe they would. Until they do, we're left with having to find a proxy for actual downloads. That will inevitably be imperfect to a much greater degree than the current radio tracking model.


----------



## Stonesy

I think the toothepaste is out of the tube. People have 'tetrabytes' of music that they didn't pay anything for. Two wrongs don't make a right. Its only a complex problem in the minds of those who try to justify theft.


----------



## hollowbody

Stonesy said:


> *I think the toothepaste is out of the tube. *People have 'tetrabytes' of music that they didn't pay anything for. Two wrongs don't make a right. Its only a complex problem in the minds of those who try to justify theft.


Not to derail this thread, because I _do_ find it really interesting, but I've never heard this saying before, and I _love_ it!

The problem with downloading is the same as with cassette tapes when they first hit the market. Artists and labels were afraid that people would make illegal copies of their music and they would lose money. This, of course, _did_ happen, but the other thing that happened was something hugely interesting. The "mix-tape" was born, and suddenly artists had word of mouth advertising: gratis!

These days, it's the exact same issue. Only instead of mix-tapes, there's entire playlists and discographies changing hands, though the word of mouth advertising still exists. A lot of indie bands who never would have sold 1,000 copies of their EP are going on tour because they played it right and milked the word of mouth machine for everything it was worth. Sure, there's more info being passed along, but that's to be expected given the advanced in communications.

Mix-tapes didn't ruin the music industry, and I honestly don't think pirated music is _the sole reason_ for the industry's troubles. It certainly is part of it, that goes without saying, but I think several other issues compounded the problem, such as overall quality of music, sheer volume of music, etc.


----------



## Guest

Stonesy said:


> People have 'terabytes' of music that they *only paid the levy on the hard drives* for.


I fixed that for you. :smilie_flagge17:


----------



## Guest

Rugburn said:


> Well Ian, I didn't realize I was participating in a legal debate with you and Milkman.


Rugburn, the morals comment was directed at Milkman. But yea, I had high hopes we could talk about this without it devolving.



> My point was regarding people deciding for themselves how best to support artists. As I stated before, there's more to supporting an artist than showing up at a concert. Let's not even talk about how much of one's ticket price has nothing to do with an artist's income.


A fair point. Creators should be in complete control of their copyrights at all times -- if I want to sign over ownership of my songs to a label I should be free to choose to do so, or not. If I want to give it away, it should be my choice. It's not, and the government on the advice of the majority of the musical copyright holders, has tried to put into place a system that compensates copyright holders for this inequality. Sucks it's not perfect, but there it is.



> How the Americans are dealing with this is far more critical to the future of the industry, than how we propose to deal with it here in Canada.


I disagree here. WIPO doesn't have a weighting to their voting. Canada's voice is as equal as the U.S. voice. And it says a lot that Canada's current legislation is WIPO-compliant. But then again: so is China's, they just have enforcement issues and the problem that they have had a society for many, many years now that proclaimed thoughts were the property of The People, not The Individual.

I think Canada acts well and very much on its own here. I'm always happy to think we're giving it our own hard thought and not just following the lead of the U.S. Plus: our court system isn't set up for a U.S.-style adversarial approach. Our tort laws aren't nearly as aggressive as theirs and we don't have the massive judiciary they do. 

Edit: See, Canada could really lead the world here: http://excesscopyright.blogspot.com/2009/06/copyright-reform-back-on-course.html



> I appreciate your point about our laws here and I never questioned that, but this issue is global in scale. Frankly, I don't really see this as all that hostile a discusion. Fact is many folks who make movies, television and music for a living, are in a situation where their livelihoods are in real jeopardy.


And here's a really good point you make: it's not just the music industry that suffers. Video, software, graphic arts -- all victims of the digital exchange of information. Somehow the music copyright holders just seem to have the loudest lobbying voice. I suspect the television and film industry eclipses all when it comes to production dollars and street value of products, so a little sample here and there for video is arguably more detrimental than a song. And they get nada for levies.



> Add to this funding cuts to the arts across the board, and the sense that all of this ought to be free entertainment is a serious threat.


Well, my politics lean towards government staying out of arts funding. I think governments should focus on infrastructure. The fundamentals of a hallmark society. Make it a place people want to live and arts benefactors will come. But that's neither here nor there.



> Pretty soon farmers and artists will be singing along side by side about the good ole' days when they had jobs.


Doubtful. Musicians were already a far poorer lot than the farmers. It's not far to fall when you're already at the bottom of the earning pool.


----------



## Guest

mhammer said:


> Personally, I buy very little music. Largely because I don't actually listen to music much anymore. I might pick up a cd in the delete bin now and then, but the whole thing of waiting for a particular artist and deliberately seeking out their oeuvre has pretty much taken a permanent vacation from my life.


It's funny but the older I get the happier I am to just listen to what I've got. I used to seek out stuff with a pretty rampant fervor. But I was young and had time to kill in music stores and clubs. Now I just like a good soundtrack to the office work.



> Frankly, I think its because there is too much damn music. Waaaaaayyyyyy too much.


Ain't that the truth. Music burn out is pretty easy to experience these days.



> And too damn many youth thinking that somehow they ought to be able to make a decent living doing something that should properly be the domain of maybe 0.1% of the population. It becomes a bit like every second person wanting to be a dentist, and then bitching about how they can't make a decent living as a dentist because of all the undercutting and free services.


Not unlike Engineering. It might sound harsh but when I'm interviewing it's not hard to spot the people who are sitting in that interview because someone told them they'd make a lot of money "In Computers". Or because they were good with maths they should be an Engineer. It was really, really bad in the early 2000's, right after the crash -- there weren't enough jobs to handle all the "fairweather Engineers" -- the ones who went into Engineering school because it was the flavour-of-the-'90's career. No one told them that if you don't absolutely love your vocation it shows. And in a job where you're tasked with creating things it shows quickly and horribly and usually gets you exited. Even friends from Engineering school, smart people who just got into the wrong vocation, went through the post-degree soul searching. Some decided what they wanted to do was raise their kids and write greeting cards (I kid you not, and she's doing awesome at both), some decided they really meant to be doctors, some teachers, some even brew beer for a microbrewery in London. It all seemed glamorous going in. The reality wasn't quite so nice.



> I suppose if one puts blinders on and can pretend like music began three months ago, then it is possible to identify what merits listening to and purchase by some means. But if one's knowledge of music goes back 1000 years, and spans all cultures and forms, AND you happen to have a life which would preclude listening to music 24/7, just how in the heck do you make decisions about what to listen to and how? If my "music" includes Was/Not Was, Javanese gamelan music, Eddie Lang, bushmen of the Ituri forest, Charles Ives, and Palestrina, why should any single medium be expected to cater to all of that?
> 
> Perhaps equally important, why should any listener feel enough of a sense of obligation to artists to "support" them? If "my music" is made entirely by tattooed people my own age who are still touring and using it as their primary revenue stream, I guess my attention might be held by the notion of fair compensation, although it might just as easily not be if my tastes are fickle and driven by fashion and zeitgeist. If "my music" tends to be made principally by those to whom there is nary a hope of providing any compensation to them or their descendants, then "supporting" music tends not to enter my consciousness much either.


Perhaps we will see a shift, as the old bands hang it up and the young bands, the ones who grew up with the technology, take up the reins. I know the young bands I'm listening to these days give it away. Not in great quantities, but away none the less. And that's how I know they exist. I'll start a thread about how to fill your iPod for free though. Legally and with no depletion of anyone's moral bank account. :smile:

Man I'm supposed to be working all night...the life of an Engineer.


----------



## Stonesy

Now that was good!Point by point and to the point.


----------



## Mooh

Great conversation!

A brief comment on the exchange of "mix" tapes and playlists. Almost daily, a guitar student will ask me about some tune or another that they really like, but they are not sure of the artist, tune name, and they haven't sourced the tune at all on their own. All they know is they like it, didn't pay for it, and want someone else to get them the free tab so that they can learn to play it. (Just as often I'm asked about tunes that have been sourced, so I'm not saying everyone does this.) It was bad enough when mix CDs were all the rage, but it's worse now with iPods and other players...I don't use one, no need...but aren't they supposed to contain the necessary information like artist/tune/etc?

In any event, I do truly miss the days of holding an LP album in my hands.

Peace, Mooh.


----------



## hollowbody

Mooh said:


> It was bad enough when mix CDs were all the rage, but it's worse now with iPods and other players...I don't use one, no need...but aren't they supposed to contain the necessary information like artist/tune/etc?


Theoretically, yes. But it all depends on how the mp3 was actually encoded. It might be missing valuable data in the id3 tag, which is where the artist, title, album, cover photo and other info is stored.

This is quite a common problem when you download from some random hit'n'run pirate site, but several private trackers will only allow you to upload an album once it has been encoded to an acceptable bitrate to ensure quality and has been tagged properly.

Also, it's possible the kid just wasn't paying attention :smile:


----------



## Milkman

iaresee said:


> You two do seem to have some shared morals.
> 
> 
> What you heard from me was a discussion of the laws of our country. There was no rationalization, only fact. There was no rationalization because there were no _actions_ discussed in post.
> 
> 
> 
> You're mixing _morality_ and _legality_ here and trying to call them one and the same.
> 
> Discussion of these matters does no implicate anyone in a crime or tort offense.
> 
> That up there is the big reason these threads seem to take a dive IMO. A few people wander in waving their big Sticks of Morality and proclaiming their morals to be The Only Way To Live. And very soon it all devolves into something very, very personal.
> 
> When you start to imply that anyone who raises their children with a different set of morals than you is wrong, or bad or evil you're getting into that realm of personal attacks that's hard to shrug off. You're baiting.
> 
> I'm asking that we steer away from this.
> 
> I sleep well at night because I'm an active participant in our country. Because I love that I can discuss the legal system I live within without being labeled a criminal for doing so. That questioning our government is a noble and respected activity that doesn't end up with men in black suits at my door wanting to haul me off to Re-Education Camp. That our system evolves and I can take an active role in that evolution. I sleep well at night knowing I will teach my children to know, understand and respect the laws of the country they live in.
> 
> Also: I don't give much thought to what you and your _moral_ compass thinks I should be teaching my children. I teach them the law, and my set of morals. And I don't expect you to share the morals part of your life with me. I do expect we share the law part.


Again, if you can sleep at night knowing you've downloaded thousands of songs without paying for them and justify it with the tiny pittance you may have paid as a levy when buying unrelated blank media, that's fine, but don't look down on me because I have a moral issue with the practice.

We all have to teach our kids wrong from right. I voiced my opinion. I stand by it.

Sometimes the law is wrong. We have lots of laws that protect criminals and other laws that put people in jail for smoking the dried remnants of a plant that grows naturally. At the same time it's NOT against the law to buy and consume distilled alcohol.


----------



## Mooh

hollowbody said:


> Theoretically, yes. But it all depends on how the mp3 was actually encoded. It might be missing valuable data in the id3 tag, which is where the artist, title, album, cover photo and other info is stored.
> 
> This is quite a common problem when you download from some random hit'n'run pirate site, but several private trackers will only allow you to upload an album once it has been encoded to an acceptable bitrate to ensure quality and has been tagged properly.
> 
> Also, it's possible the kid just wasn't paying attention :smile:


LOL! Thanks.

So often the sound quality sucks too. (I have the same complaint about YouTube...and yes, I'm using good speakers/headphones.)

Peace, Mooh.


----------



## Guest

Milkman said:


> Sometimes the law is wrong. We have lots of laws that protect criminals and other laws that put people in jail for smoking the dried remnants of a plant that grows naturally. At the same time it's NOT against the law to buy and consume distilled alcohol.


I just want to follow this through here using the line of reasoning you've taken in this thread: so based on everything you've said you teach your kids that they should follow the _Copyright Laws of Canada_ to the letter (actually, they should follow _more_ than the copyright laws, they should follow Milkman's Moral Code), but they can ignore parts of the _Criminal Code of Canada_ (in this case drug laws) that they don't agree with.

So here is where your reasoning falls apart: in the case of downloaded music those doing the downloading are _following_ the law, they're not _breaking_ any laws. In the case you point out above you are _breaking_ the law. Criminal law at that. That's a significant difference that destroys that kind of reasoning. If the law is wrong but allows the behaviour you can _choose_ to abstain or partake. But if the law is wrong and disallows a behaviour you cannot choose to partake. That's not a defense for your actions.

Like I said: morals vs. laws.


----------



## hollowbody

iaresee said:


> I just want to follow this through here using the line of reasoning you've taken in this thread: so based on everything you've said you teach your kids that they should follow the _Copyright Laws of Canada_ to the letter (actually, they should follow _more_ than the copyright laws, they should follow Milkman's Moral Code), but they can ignore parts of the _Criminal Code of Canada_ (in this case drug laws) that they don't agree with.
> 
> So here is where your reasoning falls apart: in the case of downloaded music those doing the downloading are _following_ the law, they're not _breaking_ any laws. In the case you point out above you are _breaking_ the law. Criminal law at that. That's a significant difference that destroys that kind of reasoning. If the law is wrong but allows the behaviour you can _choose_ to abstain or partake. But if the law is wrong and disallows a behaviour you cannot choose to partake. That's not a defense for your actions.
> 
> Like I said: morals vs. laws.


Opinions change depending on the law in question. Some people think the speed limit is a suggestion and see now reason not to do 20-over because it's the "accepted" amount you can go over without getting in trouble.

Anywho, saw this posted elsewhere, so I thought I'd link to it. It's a statement released by Richard Marx stating that he thinks the RIAA has gone too far in it's prosecution of Jammie Thomas-Rasset (the lady with the 24 mp3s who's being sued 1.9 million).

While Marx makes it clear he doesn't agree with with downloading, he _is_ unhappy with the ridiculous amount of the lawsuit and how she's being made into a scapegoat for when she's clearly not one of the problem downloaders.


----------



## Rugburn

iaresee said:


> I disagree here. WIPO doesn't have a weighting to their voting. Canada's voice is as equal as the U.S. voice. And it says a lot that Canada's current legislation is WIPO-compliant. But then again: so is China's, they just have enforcement issues and the problem that they have had a society for many, many years now that proclaimed thoughts were the property of The People, not The Individual.
> 
> I think Canada acts well and very much on its own here. I'm always happy to think we're giving it our own hard thought and not just following the lead of the U.S. Plus: our court system isn't set up for a U.S.-style adversarial approach. Our tort laws aren't nearly as aggressive as theirs and we don't have the massive judiciary they do.
> 
> 
> Doubtful. Musicians were already a far poorer lot than the farmers. It's not far to fall when you're already at the bottom of the earning pool.


My point in regards to how America deals with the downloading of various media was more about the number of people involved, rather than the quality of legal instruction afforded by their laws and their judiciary. We are a small country in terms of file sharing revenue losses to the big labels. America represents a much, much larger loss of revenue. It stands to reason that whatever tactics or regulations they adopt will likely prevail. I should have been clearer about this. Well politics aside, it's a reallity for many companies involved in the arts here in Canada, that they've traditionally recieved government funding. With the corporate side of this issue in turmoil and state funding growing increasingly thin, it's safe to say it's becoming very difficult for many in these industries. I'm not holding my breath for the upper classes to lend a hand, but as you said that's another debate entirely. My last quoted statement was a joke. Perhaps a poor, melodramatic one, but not to be taken seriously by any means.


Shawn :food-smiley-004:


----------



## Milkman

iaresee said:


> I just want to follow this through here using the line of reasoning you've taken in this thread: so based on everything you've said you teach your kids that they should follow the _Copyright Laws of Canada_ to the letter (actually, they should follow _more_ than the copyright laws, they should follow Milkman's Moral Code), but they can ignore parts of the _Criminal Code of Canada_ (in this case drug laws) that they don't agree with.
> 
> So here is where your reasoning falls apart: in the case of downloaded music those doing the downloading are _following_ the law, they're not _breaking_ any laws. In the case you point out above you are _breaking_ the law. Criminal law at that. That's a significant difference that destroys that kind of reasoning. If the law is wrong but allows the behaviour you can _choose_ to abstain or partake. But if the law is wrong and disallows a behaviour you cannot choose to partake. That's not a defense for your actions.
> 
> Like I said: morals vs. laws.


So when did you pass the bar?

I'm not suggesting that you follow my code. Also you're making some assumptions. I don't recall saying that I advisd my kids to do ANYthing against the law.

I'm just trying to do what's right and no matter how much you wiggle and squirm, if you download 100 songs and pay nothing other than the levy (which is not distributed to anyone other than the big guys), and you're ok with that, don't bother defending it to me.

I don't hide behind the law. I'm (if I can be so presumptuous) a musician. I find the idea of screwing other musicians because I can get away with it rather vile. Opinions vary I suppose.


----------



## Guest

Milkman said:


> So when did you pass the bar?


This is highschool civics and ethics -- where you learn about social contracts, the Canadian legal system, what tort law, civil law and criminal law all our. The history and theory behind it all. John Locke et al. It's a fundamental part of our civil education to try and make people understand why they have to follow the laws (because you live here) and where our laws come from, how they're made, how the legal system works.



> Also you're making some assumptions. I don't recall saying that I advisd my kids to do ANYthing against the law.


I'm making the same assumptions you made to prove a point: you sat there telling us we tell our kids to Do Bad Things because we were discussing downloading in a forum. I'm saying, by your same reasoning, you tell your kids to Do Illegal Things because you said, in a forum, you don't like the drug laws in Canada. To simply point out how absurd the accusation was coming from you.


----------



## 4345567

Milkman said:


> Consider the reality that this levy you use as rationalization, is based on a percentage of volume of sales. The more people download, the lower sales become (no secret there). So the more downloading that occurs, the smaller the amount of the levy.
> 
> Or am I mathmatically challenged?
> 
> Go ahead and do what you must, but stop wasting time trying to convince me and others who share my distaste for stealing from musicians that music is free.


Firstly, you might be mathematically challenged. Or maybe my reading comprehension isn't up to speed. I don't follow your logic regarding more downloading equalling a smaller levy. The levy is set periodically by the Copyright Board.

Secondly, I'm not trying to rationalize anything. I don't even use P2P networks. All I've tried to do is explain how the system works and why the system was put in place. It is what it is. It might not be the best system, but it's an attempt. I still haven't heard your ideas for how to solve the issue and make sure that artists get appropriately compensated.

Thirdly, what I find somewhat distateful are your attempts to paint anyone who disagrees with you as a thief who encourages stealing music and believes that artists shouldn't be compensated. That's a total misrepresentation of my views and, I believe, Ian's views. The issue is what kind of system should be put in place to ensure the best, most accurate and fairest compensation system. Not what sytem will best screw the artist. To extend an analogy you previously raised, I also happen to think drug addiction should be treated as a medical and social issue, not as a criminal issue. Does that mean I'm a drug pusher who thinks everyone should be high all the time?


----------



## Guest

nkjanssen said:


> Thirdly, what I find somewhat distateful are your attempts to paint anyone who disagrees with you as a thief who encourages stealing music and believes that artists shouldn't be compensated. That's a total misrepresentation of my views and, I believe, Ian's views.


Yes, you have accurately capture my intent here in the discourse I'm having with Milkman. Talking about these things does not make you any more or less morally reprehensible or criminally responsible. It just makes you curious.


----------



## torndownunit

These technologies are NOT going anywhere. Compression schemes are P2P software are only going to improve. Instead of attempting to single people out, more effort should be spent finding a way to make the technology work for everyone. Attempting to pull the moral high ground on people is not helping. You have your morals, other people have theirs. The first bit of philosophy most people learn.

The amount of money I have spent on concerts and music over the years is absolutely ridiculous. When I got my first good job, I bought 10 cd's a week (when HMV had those cards), and I went to at least one live show a week. So I honestly don't care what anyone thinks of my downloading habits. Yes I download music. But I also buy as much or MORE music than I bought in the past. And I have spend/spend more on it than any sane person should.

You just can't make blanket statements about everyone who downloads music. It's a grey area with the law first of all. And secondly, every individual is different. For every person blindly downloading music, there is another like me who downloading and buying.

When it becomes completely illegal, and I will arrested for what I do, then feel free to pull the moral high ground on me. Until then keep the 'how can anyone sleep at night who does this' comments to yourself.


----------



## david henman

...so its perfectly okay to steal an artist's music, but wrong for anyone to call it theft?






torndownunit said:


> These technologies are NOT going anywhere. Compression schemes are P2P software are only going to improve. Instead of attempting to single people out, more effort should be spent finding a way to make the technology work for everyone. Attempting to pull the moral high ground on people is not helping. You have your morals, other people have theirs. The first bit of philosophy most people learn.
> 
> The amount of money I have spent on concerts and music over the years is absolutely ridiculous. When I got my first good job, I bought 10 cd's a week (when HMV had those cards), and I went to at least one live show a week. So I honestly don't care what anyone thinks of my downloading habits. Yes I download music. But I also buy as much or MORE music than I bought in the past. And I have spend/spend more on it than any sane person should.
> 
> You just can't make blanket statements about everyone who downloads music. It's a grey area with the law first of all. And secondly, every individual is different. For every person blindly downloading music, there is another like me who downloading and buying.
> 
> When it becomes completely illegal, and I will arrested for what I do, then feel free to pull the moral high ground on me. Until then keep the 'how can anyone sleep at night who does this' comments to yourself.


----------



## Milkman

nkjanssen said:


> Firstly, you might be mathematically challenged. Or maybe my reading comprehension isn't up to speed. I don't follow your logic regarding more downloading equalling a smaller levy. The levy is set periodically by the Copyright Board.


If the levy is distributed as a percentage of CD sales and CD sales are declining because of downloading, then, yes, as downloading increases the artists will receive a diminishing return.

Also, of course, because MOST people who download music don't transfer the files to blank media, there's no corelation between the sales of blank media and the lost CD sales.




nkjanssen said:


> Secondly, I'm not trying to rationalize anything. I don't even use P2P networks. All I've tried to do is explain how the system works and why the system was put in place. It is what it is. It might not be the best system, but it's an attempt. I still haven't heard your ideas for how to solve the issue and make sure that artists get appropriately compensated.


How about personal responsibility? Don't download files for free just because you can get away with it.



nkjanssen said:


> Thirdly, what I find somewhat distateful are your attempts to paint anyone who disagrees with you as a thief who encourages stealing music and believes that artists shouldn't be compensated. That's a total misrepresentation of my views and, I believe, Ian's views. The issue is what kind of system should be put in place to ensure the best, most accurate and fairest compensation system. Not what sytem will best screw the artist. To extend an analogy you previously raised, I also happen to think drug addiction should be treated as a medical and social issue, not as a criminal issue. Does that mean I'm a drug pusher who thinks everyone should be high all the time?


As for this, if the show fits, wear it. I'm, sorry but I'm not going to soft pedal what I think is a terrible situation.

No, I don't have a solution, other than to not download files when I know well that the creator of the files is getting nothing or next to nothing for their efforts.

If you don't do this then why are you so defensive about it?


----------



## Milkman

david henman said:


> ...so its perfectly okay to steal an artist's music, but wrong for anyone to call it theft?


Well, I suppose artists are supposed to starve. Apparently it takes this hunger to be creative. Good thing plumbers and electricians don't need such conditions to do their work.

Typically when I ask some youg guy why he downloads music for free the response is something like, "well if I don't do it someone else will...."

I choose not to be that someone else.


----------



## hollowbody

david henman said:


> ...so its perfectly okay to steal an artist's music, but wrong for anyone to call it theft?


Depends what you do with it. If you download music, listen to it and call it a day, sure I'll go ahead and call that person a "thief," for whatever that statement is worth in a legal or moral situation.

On the other hand, if you're downloading music, and then supporting that artist by buying their albums or seeing their shows, I fail to see how that could be called theft. 

It's just another medium for you to encounter new artist. You don't pay for listening to the radio, you don't pay for watching Much Music or MTV, you don't pay for listening to streaming radio, or streaming audio, you don't pay for youtube. The difference is that after you listen to an artist through these other means, you can't hear that song again until it comes on again. 

I would argue that if you didn't like the song/album much in the first place, most people would tend to delete it. Where's the crime there? You can go to HMV and try an album out before you buy. Is that illegal now too?

The ability to download albums has introduced me to many more artists in the last 10 years then I would have gotten to know and appreciate through the normal channels, especially given the crap that's on the radio these days. I've gone out an supported as many of these artists as possible by catching their concerts, buying cds, t-shirts, etc. These are all purchases I _would not_ have made had it not been for P2P downloading. 

You can sit on your high horse and proclaim your morals to be superior or more evolved or whatever all you like. Fact of the matter is that P2P downloading in theory is no different than listening to the radio or watching music videos, let alone worse.

Anyone who's ever recorded a song off the radio is guilty of the same "crime" as I am for downloading stuff. Let he who is without sin etc, etc.


----------



## Guest

Milkman said:


> If the levy is distributed as a percentage of CD sales and CD sales are declining because of downloading, then, yes, as downloading increases the artists will receive a diminishing return.


That's not how it works. It's distributed based on _relative_ sales. So if I represent 15% of all CD sales in this quarter it doesn't matter how many CDs I sold, just that 15% of all CD sales when to me. So 15% of the levy is mine. The reimbursement is independent of actual numbers of CDs sold. It's just how many you sold relative to everyone else. It's actually something more complicated based on sales and air play. SOCAN has the algorithm some place on their site. But it's a relative figure, not an absolute figure.



> Also, of course, because MOST people who download music don't transfer the files to blank media, there's no corelation between the sales of blank media and the lost CD sales.


Hard drives are levied.


----------



## Milkman

iaresee said:


> That's not how it works. It's distributed based on _relative_ sales. So if I represent 15% of all CD sales in this quarter it doesn't matter how many CDs I sold, just that 15% of all CD sales when to me. So 15% of the levy is mine. The reimbursement is independent of actual numbers of CDs sold. It's just how many you sold relative to everyone else. It's actually something more complicated based on sales and air play. SOCAN has the algorithm some place on their site. But it's a relative figure, not an absolute figure.
> 
> 
> Hard drives are levied.



I'd love to see some actual numbers. I doubt VERY much that the amount an artist receives in the form of their percentage of the Levy, would come anywhere NEAR the amount of revenue they lost because people chose to download INSTEAD of buying the CD.

And naturally only members of Socan get anthing at all. I know of indie bands who have found their music on P2P sites completely without their authorization. Once the damage is done, it's done.


We can go on about this all day and night. It comes down to whether you think getting music for free is ethical. If you do, there's no need to try and explain it to me or anyone else.

Let's face it. Very few people will buy the cow when they get the milk for free.


----------



## Milkman

hollowbody said:


> Depends what you do with it. If you download music, listen to it and call it a day, sure I'll go ahead and call that person a "thief," for whatever that statement is worth in a legal or moral situation.
> 
> On the other hand, if you're downloading music, and then supporting that artist by buying their albums or seeing their shows, I fail to see how that could be called theft.
> 
> It's just another medium for you to encounter new artist. You don't pay for listening to the radio, you don't pay for watching Much Music or MTV, you don't pay for listening to streaming radio, or streaming audio, you don't pay for youtube. The difference is that after you listen to an artist through these other means, you can't hear that song again until it comes on again.
> 
> I would argue that if you didn't like the song/album much in the first place, most people would tend to delete it. Where's the crime there? You can go to HMV and try an album out before you buy. Is that illegal now too?
> 
> The ability to download albums has introduced me to many more artists in the last 10 years then I would have gotten to know and appreciate through the normal channels, especially given the crap that's on the radio these days. I've gone out an supported as many of these artists as possible by catching their concerts, buying cds, t-shirts, etc. These are all purchases I _would not_ have made had it not been for P2P downloading.
> 
> You can sit on your high horse and proclaim your morals to be superior or more evolved or whatever all you like. Fact of the matter is that P2P downloading in theory is no different than listening to the radio or watching music videos, let alone worse.
> 
> Anyone who's ever recorded a song off the radio is guilty of the same "crime" as I am for downloading stuff. Let he who is without sin etc, etc.


 I know of nobody who recorded thousands of songs from the radio and never purchased the original recordings. The difference is rather huge in terms of scale is it not?

The idea of radio is that you get to hear the music. You don't get to own it.


----------



## Guest

Milkman said:


> I'd love to see some actual numbers. I doubt VERY much that the amount an artist receives in the form of their percentage of the Levy, would come anywhere NEAR the amount of revenue they lost because people chose to download INSTEAD of buying the CD.


We all would, that's for sure. The problem is: downloads outside the legit systems (Napster, Zune, Yahoo, iTunes) aren't tracked. There's been some attempts at estimates, but they've all failed to prove they were meaningful or accurate.



> And naturally only members of Socan get anthing at all. I know of indie bands who have found their music on P2P sites completely without their authorization. Once the damage is done, it's done.


I guess: why not use SOCAN? That's the question. Being "indie" doesn't mean not joining SOCAN. You don't need to be on a label to be tracked by SOCAN. There's a system, and if you choose to live outside it, what can be done? Do these outsiders represent and significant sales? If you were being distributed by any existing distributor or receiving air play you'd be a fool to not be SOCAN or ASCAP -- because that's how you'd be getting paid. As much as we can speculate that downloaders don't buy any music, we can speculate that bands who choose to live outside the system don't represent any significant revenue _within_ the system. They're making money _because _they're outside the system.



> We can go on about this all day and night. It comes down to whether you think getting music for free is ethical. If you do, there's no need to try and explain it to me or anyone else.


And what's wrong with what we're talking about now? We're talking about the system, the outsiders, the scheme -- somewhere in here might be a golden nugget of an idea.

Milkman: let me ask you this? Do you make sure you pay the copyright holders on the YouTube videos where you're performing other people's material? You've got a whole bunch of great stuff posted here: http://www.youtube.com/user/mxgr194 -- how do you reimburse the people who wrote that music? Maybe the methods you're using to pay the copyright holders for recording and broadcasting their songs via YouTube could be used for downloading? How do you pay for them? It looks like whoever holds the copyright on Let It Be has made a cool 1,601 x $2.00 alone. Do you pay to the U.S. only? Do you track plays by country and re-distribute payments accordingly?


----------



## hollowbody

Milkman said:


> I know of nobody who recorded thousands of songs from the radio and never purchased the original recordings. The difference is rather huge in terms of scale is it not?
> 
> The idea of radio is that you get to hear the music. You don't get to own it.


I can think of a couple people who recorded shows on CBC radio daily and got have boxes full of tapes of all sorts of music. Granted, this isn't typical behaviour of people who listen to radio, but it _does_ exist.

Similarly, not everyone who uses P2P downloads gigs upon gigs of music, but those people exist as well.

What I'm asking you to try to see is that the medium has changed, and the dynamic may have shifted to a larger quantity, but the actual _practice_ is not all that different than what has been going on for years and years. The higher quantity is more a product of how easy it is to get information these days. 

I remember when I was young, when there was a song I really liked on the radio and I wanted to record it for a mix tape or something, I had to sit around waiting for the station to play that song. Sometimes I'd be at the dinner table or in the washroom when my song came on, and I'd be annoyed, but sit back down and wait for the next time. These days, it's _so_ much easier! No wonder it happens more often.

As far as I'm concerned, if even 5% of people who download your music buy it, that still is more than the 0% who didn't have the opportunity to hear your album. (note: this argument falls apart for well-known, established bands, and I know that - however, I don't think U2 or other large acts are having too much trouble selling cds or booking venues to begin with).

Anywho, that's just how I see it.


----------



## 4345567

Milkman said:


> If you don't do this then why are you so defensive about it?


There's an interesting phenomonon that isn't exclusive to the internet but that does seem very prevelant - whenever a difficult or controverisal issue is discussed, quite often whomever shouts the loudest and hurls the most insults ends up pushing out those who want to discuss the issue intelligently, dispasionately and with reason in place of rhetoric. I'm sure you can figure out what that does to the average quality of discourse online.

I thought, for a moment, that there was actually going to be an intelligent, rational discussion here of the nature of copyright and how laws should develop to protect artists in the modern age of digital technology. It seemed to be headed there for a bit.

In the end, I guess this really is just a schoolyard.


----------



## Milkman

nkjanssen said:


> There's an interesting phenomonon that isn't exclusive to the internet but that does seem very prevelant - whenever a difficult or controverisal issue is discussed, quite often whomever shouts the loudest and hurls the most insults ends up pushing out those who want to discuss the issue intelligently, dispasionately and with reason in place of rhetoric. I'm sure you can figure out what that does to the average quality of discourse online.
> 
> I thought, for a moment, that there was actually going to be an intelligent, rational discussion here of the nature of copyright and how laws should develop to protect artists in the modern age of digital technology. It seemed to be headed there for a bit.
> 
> In the end, I guess this really is just a schoolyard.


Well with all due respect, I'm not the one who seems to have his nose out of joint.

You're getting indignant and acusing _me_ of shouting.

If you like, I can avoid the thread and you and the others who agree that downloading music without paying for it is fine, carry on your discussion.

Of course if you decide to throw one across my bow, I'll be sure to respond.


----------



## Milkman

iaresee said:


> Milkman: let me ask you this? Do you make sure you pay the copyright holders on the YouTube videos where you're performing other people's material? You've got a whole bunch of great stuff posted here: http://www.youtube.com/user/mxgr194 -- how do you reimburse the people who wrote that music? Maybe the methods you're using to pay the copyright holders for recording and broadcasting their songs via YouTube could be used for downloading? How do you pay for them? It looks like whoever holds the copyright on Let It Be has made a cool 1,601 x $2.00 alone. Do you pay to the U.S. only? Do you track plays by country and re-distribute payments accordingly?


Wow, you're REALLY stretching now LOL. Are you comparing my partial live song clips to the downloading of actual digital recordings? Are you suggesting that those who play songs around a camp fire pay royalties for the songs they routinely slaughter in the same way that I attempted to cover Supertramp and others?

Man this is cracking me up.


Is it THAT important that others agree with you?


If you can't pr don't want to see the difference, I guess that's up to you.


----------



## 4345567

Milkman said:


> Well with all due respect, I'm not the one who seems to have his nose out of joint.


If my "nose is out of joint", it's because I was hoping the discussion would be kept at a higher level than it seems to have devolved into.




> ...If you like, I can avoid the thread and you and the others who agree that downloading music without paying for it is fine, carry on your discussion.


...and because you keep misrepresenting and mischaracterizing my viewpoint in order to paint me as some kind of petty criminal.

I love an intelligent discussion and I actually have a lot of background in this area (from a policy perspective, a legal perspective AND from an artist's perspective). This kind of childish bickering isn't worth the aggrevation, though. Some people seem to thrive on it. I don't.

Feel free to have the last word.


----------



## Guest

Milkman said:


> Wow, you're REALLY stretching now LOL. Are you comparing my partial live song clips to the downloading of actual digital recordings?


Not quite. I'm wondering how you go about paying for the songs your using? It's a fair comparison. The copyright laws don't provide for "partial use" fair use rights unless you're an educator. In both cases, your YouTube videos and downloading, the _crime_ (and I use that word loosely here) is the same: copyright infringement. If a copyright holder takes action against the infringing party the damages might be different, but the crime is same. It's called the same thing, it's dealt with the same way, in the same portion of our court system, etc. It isn't just that I'm comparing them, it's that they are one and the same.

You can LOL all you want: that's just plain fact. Besides, this is not a partial clip. It's your recording of a Pink Floyd song and its been streamed just a little over 1000 times now. Shouldn't Gilmour/Waters get paid for that?



> Are you suggesting that those who play songs around a camp fire pay royalties for the songs they routinely slaughter in the same way that I attempted to cover Supertramp and others?


I'm not suggesting anything. The law says: you perform another person's song, you pay them. Yes, those lame-ass covers around the campfire need to be paid for. In practice no one goes after the campfire singers because the cost of collecting out weigh the benefits of collecting. The amount you can collect for the public performance of one of your copyrighted songs is fixed by our copyright law at somewhere around $2/performance. Copyright holders are free to pick and choose who they sue for infringement. They can go after a campfire singer if they like, but ignore a downloader. And next week the might sue the guy uploading his cover to YouTube and ignore the campfire singer. Copyright's come with that kind of selective suing capability in our system. But on YouTube, well, things get hauled down all the time for using copyrighted works without permission. There's even a handy little button for reporting it when you're watching videos. Just because your videos haven't been flagged, doesn't mean it's okay. You either represent too small a cash out for the copyright holder to sue you or none of the copyright holders have noticed.

Don't you wonder why all those big box restaurants have their own little cheesy birthday ditty they sing instead of Happy Birthday? Because Happy Birthday is a copyrighted work. And they'd have to pay the owners of Happy Birthday every time they used. They don't want to do that, so they write their own little ditties.

This really isn't going after you Milkman, I'm trying to discuss this with you. Why don't you think you need to pay the people who wrote those songs? You've played them, recorded them, and posted them for the world to listen to -- under our copyright laws, that means you owe them their $2 (actually, think it's a little less than that now, and there might be a different rate for streaming audio versus radio play...).



> Is it THAT important that others agree with you?


Not at all. I don't really care if you agree or not. I'm trying to talk about this with you.



> If you can't pr don't want to see the difference, I guess that's up to you.


Maybe you can start by explaining to me what you think the difference is between the two acts? Why in one case someone should pay the copyright holders (downloading), and in the other case it's okay not to pay them (posting covers of songs on YouTube).

Someone once said to me: copyright laws have become so complex that it's nearly impossible to follow them to the letter -- so we tend to obey and disobey them when it's convenient for us.


----------



## Starbuck

Milkman said:


> Let's face it. Very few people will buy the cow when they get the milk for free.


What about if you've bought the cow previously? More than once in some cases? On Album, Casette, and cd? I admit to downloading past purchases. Is _that_stealing? I buy lots of other stuff from iTunes. I will pay a buck a song with pleasure. I'm very happy to not buy an album's worth of crap for one song.


----------



## david henman

...we human beings are capable of rationalizing and justifying pretty much anything we do or say. that's a fact. and that is what a lot of the arguments for taking something without paying for it sound like...

i don't want to come off hypocritical, just honest. i smoke an illegal substance, for that matter, so it would be wrong of me to take a holier than thou attitude.

the only difference is that i'm not hurting anybody.

the free downloading thing, for me, is more of a moral/ethical issue than a legal one.

-dh


----------



## hollowbody

david henman said:


> ...we human beings are capable of rationalizing and justifying pretty much anything we do or say. that's a fact. and that is what a lot of the arguments for taking something without paying for it sound like...
> 
> i don't want to come off hypocritical, just honest. i smoke an illegal substance, for that matter, so it would be wrong of me to take a holier than thou attitude.
> 
> the only difference is that i'm not hurting anybody.
> 
> the free downloading thing, for me, is more of a moral/ethical issue than a legal one.
> 
> -dh


David, I think you're rationalizing things yourself. Just because your smoking doesn't _directly_ hurt anyone doesn't mean that there are no consequences. Maybe the person your procure your substances from is involved in underhanded dealings that could result in people being hurt or otherwise abused? You can argue the relative innocence of one narcotic over another, but there is no question that the drug trade hurts people. Lots. It is just as easily a moral/ethical issue.


----------



## Rugburn

hollowbody said:


> David, I think you're rationalizing things yourself. Just because your smoking doesn't _directly_ hurt anyone doesn't mean that there are no consequences. Maybe the person your procure your substances from is involved in underhanded dealings that could result in people being hurt or otherwise abused? You can argue the relative innocence of one narcotic over another, but there is no question that the drug trade hurts people. Lots. It is just as easily a moral/ethical issue.



*HOLY SMOKES!!* this thread just went supernova!! "underhanded dealings" people being "hurt" and "abused". I'll never download again!!

Thanks, Shawn :wave:


----------



## Milkman

Rugburn said:


> *HOLY SMOKES!!* this thread just went supernova!! "underhanded dealings" people being "hurt" and "abused". I'll never download again!!
> 
> Thanks, Shawn :wave:


Ah hell, I just found out that I'm going straight to hell for posting video clips of my band doing covers. I might as well stop paying for music right now and jump on the freebie bandwagon.kksjur


----------



## Guest

hollowbody said:


> David, I think you're rationalizing things yourself. Just because your smoking doesn't _directly_ hurt anyone doesn't mean that there are no consequences. Maybe the person your procure your substances from is involved in underhanded dealings that could result in people being hurt or otherwise abused? You can argue the relative innocence of one narcotic over another, but there is no question that the drug trade hurts people. Lots. It is just as easily a moral/ethical issue.


I was going to say the same thing. Unless DH is producing his own illegal narcotics the likelihood that some Very Bad People are involved in the chain that puts said narcotics in his hands is high. See http://www.smu.ca/newsreleases/2009/09-06-01-03.html -- organized crime plays a central role in drug distribution in this country and marijuana is a key crop. Lots of decent research out there to support this.

Certainly DH's rationalize of his illegal drug use proves his point: rationalizing actions is easy for human's to do. Milkman's rationalize of his YouTube videos help there too. 

And this thread has official gone off the rails. :smile:


----------



## Guest

Milkman said:


> Ah hell, I just found out that I'm going straight to hell for posting video clips of my band doing covers. I might as well stop paying for music right now and jump on the freebie bandwagon.kksjur


Start? Milkman: you've been participating all along with those videos. :smile:


----------



## Jeff Flowerday

iaresee said:


> And this thread has official gone off the rails. :smile:


And lets leave it there since it hasn't gone anywhere in the last 5 pages...


----------

