# Anyone see the article in the star this morning about music downloading?



## torndownunit (May 14, 2006)

Interesting article. It suggests people paying a $5 fee per month to their cable companies, and in turn all music file sharing would be legal.

I think it's one of the better ideas I have heard. I personally would have no problem paying it. Especially considering I would have access to ANY music I wanted, not just what a certain service offers.

The key line in the article hits home what the real problems are with the music downloading situation. First, there is no way to stop it. Second, the labels will not accept that and will not work together or endorse any solution that involves outside parties. Their greed and inability to work towards a solution is going to bury them. Real music fans like me would gladly pay for a service if it wasn't limited to crappy quality mp3 files, and restricted selection.

http://www.thestar.com/entertainment/article/305082

Interesting read.


----------



## Starbuck (Jun 15, 2007)

I would not mind paying it if I thought the $$ was actually going to the artists and not the service providers. They gouge err make enough money for my internet service.


----------



## torndownunit (May 14, 2006)

Well I think that is the generally idea with the fees. Although I have no idea the logistics of how they plan to do that. It's a good idea as a 'starting point' I think.


----------



## torndownunit (May 14, 2006)

Plenty. Bit Torrent, SoulSeek, various Gnutella apps. You just have to use the right applications to access the services. Read download.com reviews etc. to find which ones contain adware.


----------



## suttree (Aug 17, 2007)

the music industry has NO-ONE to blame but themselves for their imminent demise. they've suckered artists for so long they don't know how else to operate, and if they're not turning multi-billion dollar profits, then they're all of a sudden the victim of theft. they stole from musicians since day one, paying blues musicians a can of coke to record. i hope they burn in a collective hell. the musician as entrepreneur is the new business model, and frankly a $5 fee to rogers wouldn't get you any good music. just acres and acres of nickelback, britney spears and the like.

if the record labels want to save themselves, they're going to have to learn to become investment companies, giving development loans and assistance to promising artists, in exchange for a fair percentage of the profits. they used to say, "we'll make money off of you by the third or fourth album". now they say "you got one chance, make us a boatload of money, or go away". the music they sell then has precious little depth, so who needs to hear a whole album? the buying market now only wants singles (this is what the record labels worked hard to acheive, remember). 

they've also dithered so many times over the "best format" that the average consumer feels ripped off, so there's precious little remorse over downloading songs. older consumers have bought their record collection 3 or 4 times now, and they're not buying it again. their children therefor see no moral dilemma in stealing the music themselves.

/soapbox


----------



## dan_ (Feb 5, 2008)

Yeah....I love how it's applied to pretty much all forms of storage though.


----------



## Warren (Mar 2, 2007)

But, how do they propose to distribute the money? Do individual artists get paid directly for their songs that are downloaded? Sounds like another all too poorly thought out scheme to help a failing industry whose business model has not kept up with a changing business environment. 

I think the "we need a new revenue model" argument is garbage. A completely new business model is required. Perhaps a completely new industry. Let the dinosaur die like horse & buggy did when the automobile was invented.

For example, if I want to get Wayne Krantz's music, I'll go to his web page, give him $5 - $10 for an album & download it. He gets the money, I get the music. If I give my service provider $5 a month & then download Wayne's music for free I'll bet he would never see a dime of it.


----------



## hoser (Feb 2, 2006)

I have no problem paying it, as long as the artists are actually getting the money.
This is exactly the blank media tax, and everyone knows how badly that's worked out.


----------



## Stratin2traynor (Sep 27, 2006)

I DO mind paying. I think it is a bullshit band aid. Artists that support this idea are definitely not financial analysts. They are being promised a penny that's all. Surely the powers that be can come up with something better than that. Let's see the financial model for this plan. How will the money be distributed? How much do the ISP's get to keep as their "convenience fee"?

I think it is a bad idea. I pay for 90% of my music. I believe that artists should get paid as well. The stuff I download for free is to check out new artists and see if I like them. I enjoy that convenience (kinda like listening to the radio, except I decide what plays). If I like the music I'll buy it. I realize that I may be in the minority but...

The financial model or artist exploitation plan (however you want to look at it) that the music industry has enjoyed for the past ??? years is over. For better or for worse. 

While I don't have the answers, I think it's time for everyone in that industry to think outside of the box. Pumping out cookie cutter singles to get people to bop their heads and sells records is getting old. Especially when the artist has nothing else to offer but one mediocre hit single, tabloid headlines and a few stints in rehab. Why would anyone want to buy their album? 

I definitely do not think that the $5 fee will solve anything. Time to come up with a new financial model altogether. There...done ranting....:wave:


----------



## torndownunit (May 14, 2006)

The point is, it's getting closer to a workable solution then anything else that has been suggested.

The key issue is file sharing is not going to stop. If one system is stopped, another will always arise. So what 'should' happen is really irrelevant. What NEEDS to happen is what people should be focused on.

People have to start to work towards a system that will work. And the record labels are really the ones who are holding that back. A fee system like this is really as close as you can get to making sure everyone contributes. Because it's getting money right at the source, which is the ISP. It's not a perfect solution, but it's getting closer to something that could actually work. Which is why I don't think it should be just dismissed.

If people keep focusing on the be all and end all single answer...they are living in a dream world. It's not going to happen.

People forget that a key problem a lot of people have with download services is not paying for music (keep in mind I am saying SOME people, not all). It's paying for crappy selection, and crappy file quality. If you are paying a dollar a song, why should that song be anything less than CD quality? You are paying $1 for an audio track with no packaging, and no distribution. It shouldn't be $1, and it shouldn't be 128 kbps. This combined with that fact that the record labels with NEVER work together on a single system that has a library of every label means there will never be a download service that is as good to people as P2P file sharing is now. If there was, trust me I would be the first person to use it.

My rant over lol.


----------



## violation (Aug 20, 2006)

Kind of stupid IMO, but it's nice to see they're encouraging piracy for $5 a month. I've been downloading pirated stuff since '98, why would I start paying now? The cops gonna' come chase me like they have for the last decade? 

They want more people to pay for digital audio they need to start a service offering V0/APS/Lossless... not shitty CBR 128/192 rips. I'll guarantee more people would start paying. Or how about the ISPs cap and raise the price of bandwidth? Not that I want them to... I loves my unlimited but that's atleast a semi-sensible solution. Less bandwidth = less downloading or them making more money.


----------



## Warren (Mar 2, 2007)

Really, is The Songwriters Assoc. of Canada that gullible, can web service providers or some new bureaucracy that will be created to manage the $500 to $900 million actually create a method to track & distribute the royalty fairly to the artist whose song was downloaded? Or will they create some proxy for distribution like the one used for radio play royalties?

And, isn't it highly likely that some new group of management or completely non-artist financial professionals that steal the artist's money will be born out of that kind of cash flow? Or maybe The Songwriters Assoc. of Canada wants to manage it?


----------



## Stratin2traynor (Sep 27, 2006)

torndownunit said:


> The point is, it's getting closer to a workable solution then anything else that has been suggested.
> 
> The key issue is file sharing is not going to stop. If one system is stopped, another will always arise. So what 'should' happen is really irrelevant. What NEEDS to happen is what people should be focused on.
> 
> ...


I hear what you are saying. But....Why settle on a solution because it's the only one that everyone quasi agrees on. Sounds like settling for 2nd best as far as I am concerned. IMO there is no need for record companies at all, period. You can write a song in Bathurst New Brunswick in the morning, recording it on your PC and be exposed in Asia by the evening using services like MySpace, YouTube etc... That is somewhat of an exaggeration I know but I'm just trying to make a point. 

The manner in which an artist gets exposure has changed. 

Someone needs to figure out who gets money and when and I don't think a $5 tax for everyone that uses the internet in Canada is an appropriate solution. 

My $2 worth


----------



## Guest (Feb 20, 2008)

torndownunit said:


> People forget that a key problem a lot of people have with download services is not paying for music (keep in mind I am saying SOME people, not all). It's paying for crappy selection, and crappy file quality.


For me it's lock-in. I love my iPod. I hate iTunes. Why would I want to pay for a song if I can only use it _exactly_ the way Apple or the record label thinks I should be able to use it. I can only burn it a few times. I can't listen to it on anything other than my iPod.

My CDs don't have these silly restriction. Neither do my albums or cassettes.

And there's always the fear that the label or Apple might randomly _rescind_ my license to the song (because, you know, you don't buy the _song_ from iTunes, you buy a license to use the song in some [limited] fashion) because they suddenly stop liking me.

And I should add: I'm not in favour of the levy. The blank media levy isn't working, I can't see how this will either. I might change my mind if a group I trust, like SOCAN, is responsible for re-distribution. But I doubt that would happen.


----------



## NB-SK (Jul 28, 2007)

If the 5$ 'tax' is accepted, will they start selling tickets to shows at pre-WWW prices?

In any case, I really doubt the system will benefit anyone but a minority of artists, the recording companies (who will naturally demand a share of the profits), and the internet providers.


----------



## torndownunit (May 14, 2006)

Stratin2traynor said:


> I hear what you are saying. But....Why settle on a solution because it's the only one that everyone quasi agrees on. Sounds like settling for 2nd best as far as I am concerned. IMO there is no need for record companies at all, period. You can write a song in Bathurst New Brunswick in the morning, recording it on your PC and be exposed in Asia by the evening using services like MySpace, YouTube etc... That is somewhat of an exaggeration I know but I'm just trying to make a point.
> 
> The manner in which an artist gets exposure has changed.
> 
> ...



But record companies own all the catalogs. In my case, I still buy at least 60% 'older' music. I rarely buy much new stuff. So it doesn't matter what current distribution systems are available, the labels still control that music.

Again, I am not saying it's THE solution. I said it's the closest thing I have read that is even remotely feasible.

To the people who say it's encouraging piracy, what exactly is doing absolutely nothing doing?

Feel free to post a model that you think would work. My only idea, as I said, is a fantasy. And that is the labels actually agreeing to a mutual download service with no file quality restrictions. It seems so easy, but it will never happen.


----------



## devil6 (Feb 24, 2006)

I saw this awhile ago. It's an interesting concept and it's nice to see people trying to find ways to make downloading workable for all parties but this proposal isn't entirely fair I think. As has been mentioned already it's a flat fee applied to all users someone who doesn't download at all is being charged for something they aren't using.

As well what happens when the movie, software, video game people all want their fee? Are we gonna add _another_ $15-20 to our internet bills?.


----------



## violation (Aug 20, 2006)

devil6 said:


> As well what happens when the movie, software, video game people all want their fee? Are we gonna add _another_ $15-20 to our internet bills?.


I smell another writer's strike... lol. 

Keep inflating the price of a decent connection until only a select few can afford it... that'll stop the piracy! Even though most of it comes from Russia/Sweden/Netherlands/no where near Canada. I can live off ramen noodles, right?


----------



## devil6 (Feb 24, 2006)

violation said:


> I smell another writer's strike... lol.


If the TV writers want to go back on strike i'm fine with that...i didn't really miss much when they were gone.


----------



## suttree (Aug 17, 2007)

HERE is why i just love the RIAA


----------



## violation (Aug 20, 2006)

Haha that's great.


----------



## devil6 (Feb 24, 2006)

suttree said:


> HERE is why i just love the RIAA


Does that mean the elderly Vietnamese fellow who sold me a pirated copy of 
"Letters from Iwo Jima" is using that money to buy an Atom Bomb?


----------



## zontar (Oct 25, 2007)

I don't download music legally or illegally.

If I was to download it--I would do it legally.

I've listened to it streaming.

So why should I pay for others?

It's ridiculous, and no guarantee that the right people would get the money.


----------



## Geek (Jun 5, 2007)

I download from Usenet through a third party service. All encoded lossless or 360K/VBR-0 mp3.

In all the gigabytes I have downloaded, not one carried a virus.

P2P is a joke.




> If I was to download it--I would do it legally.


Downloading in Canada is legal. That's what the CPCC is all about.


Cheers!


----------



## zontar (Oct 25, 2007)

Geek said:


> Downloading in Canada is legal. That's what the CPCC is all about.
> 
> 
> Cheers!


Okay--then I would only download from a site that pays the artists, or form the artists' own website.


----------



## Geek (Jun 5, 2007)

The artist is PAID wheather you download from Usenet, P2P or a pay site. The CPCC collects a tax on *all* blank media and sends it to the collecting societies.

Dig? :wink:


----------



## Gilliangirl (Feb 26, 2006)

I have downloaded music but most of the stuff I have I've already bought sometimes as much as 4 times over. For example in the case of one Nazareth album, I own two albums (because one was so scratched from play), the same in cassette, the same in 8-track, the same in cd. How many times are we expected to buy the song?

And in another case, I was not able to get the songs because they're not available in cd yet (a couple of Jesse Colin Young songs).

The other thing that concerns me is that this $5.00 is a slippery slope. It starts with $5.00, to get the proverbial foot in the door, then it just keeps going up and up.


----------



## david henman (Feb 3, 2006)

...its about time we gave the official stamp of approval to stealing.

brilliant...

-dh


----------



## Geek (Jun 5, 2007)

It's terrible the influence the American lobbiests have had on us to the point we don't believe our own laws anymore it seems :frown:


----------



## Guest (Feb 23, 2008)

Slight tangent but interesting nonetheless: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0AgnUmB5j6E

That's video from some U of O student's explaining timeshifting, format shifting, and space shifting and how they're all _illegal_ under Canada's current copyright laws. Yup: use your PVR, go to jail. Funny, eh?


----------



## Spikezone (Feb 2, 2006)

Gilliangirl said:


> I have downloaded music but most of the stuff I have I've already bought sometimes as much as 4 times over. For example in the case of one Nazareth album, I own two albums (because one was so scratched from play), the same in cassette, the same in 8-track, the same in cd. How many times are we expected to buy the song?
> 
> And in another case, I was not able to get the songs because they're not available in cd yet


Same here-I don't own any record albums any more (used to have 4 or 500), or even a working turntable, then cassettes came and went (never owned an 8 track), and now CD's. When Napster was big, I culled through all my 33 rpms and picked out all the songs I wanted and downloaded them and burned them. I don't see the crime-I already paid the royalties for them, and shouldn't have to again to change formats, especially since the sound quality is surely less than optimal. I think the record companies are CRIMINALS and I would love to see the artists getting royalties, but only a fool wouldn't see that the system isn't set up to do that in any kind of a fair way, so the need is to find a method (IMPOSSIBLE!) of holding the record companies responsible to their artists, or discussing this subject is just a waste of time!
-Mikey


----------



## Guest (Feb 23, 2008)

Spikezone said:


> I don't see the crime-I already paid the royalties for them, and shouldn't have to again to change formats, especially since the sound quality is surely less than optimal.


Except it is. Format shifting is illegal in Canada. See my above post. We need copyright reform in Canada. Ours is a horribly outdated piece of legislation. Unfortunately what the Conservatives were proposing was _even worse_ than our current legislation (and the DMCA in the US).


----------



## Geek (Jun 5, 2007)

You are entitled to one copy under the CPCC rules and format is irellevant.

If you burn a CD to your computer or portable device for personal use, this is OK. If you burn it to DVD-audio on a disk and the original disk is damaged, destroyed or otherwise unuseable, this is OK.


----------



## Mahogany Martin (Mar 2, 2006)

Gilliangirl said:


> The other thing that concerns me is that this $5.00 is a slippery slope. It starts with $5.00, to get the proverbial foot in the door, then it just keeps going up and up.


Exactly. 5 bucks + admin charges + (some sort of) connections charges + convenience charges + all sorts of exagerated charges turning this $5 into 20, 30 or 40 dollars extra a month, with still only $5 of that going to be (somehow) distributed to artists while ISPs having another very good excuse to gouge us even more.



devil6 said:


> As has been mentioned already it's a flat fee applied to all users someone who doesn't download at all is being charged for something they aren't using.


Exactly exactly. For these people, it would be double the gouging.

We all most likely have "interesting" stories to tell about ISPs and the last thing that should happen is to have them involved at all in this business.



david henman said:


> ...its about time we gave the official stamp of approval to stealing.
> 
> brilliant...
> 
> -dh


Nop not at all. But you must admit that it is a wickedly complex issue. Most of everybody agree that THE ARTISTS should get paid for their work. But the internet, and specifically its convenience as it relates to obtaining songs, is fantastic and is here to stay. Torndownunit is right to say that it is a step forward and that something needs to be done.

While it would be convenient to pay for the service on my ISP monthly bill, I lost faith in these companies a long time ago and I hope that in the end that they don't get the chance to use this to gouge us even more.

Martin


----------



## david henman (Feb 3, 2006)

...it seems that almost everyone has created their own rationale to justify why its okay for them to download music for free.

i think i've heard them all - anyone have a new one?

-dh


----------



## guitarman2 (Aug 25, 2006)

david henman said:


> ...it seems that almost everyone has created their own rationale to justify why its okay for them to download music for free.
> 
> i think i've heard them all - anyone have a new one?
> 
> -dh



Errr umm. I download the music first and if I like the song I send the artist a cheque directly. If I don't like it, I delete it.


----------



## suttree (Aug 17, 2007)

Everything is Free by Gillian Welch

(Chorus)
Everything is free now,
That's what they say.
Everything I ever loved,
I'm going to give it away.
Someone hit the big score.
They figured it out,
That we're gonna do it anyway,
Even if doesn't pay.

I can get a tip jar,
Gas up the car,
And try to make a little change
Down at the bar.

Or I can get a straight job,
I've done it before.
I never minded working hard,
It's who I'm working for.

(Chorus)

Every day I wake up,
Come in a song.
But I don't need to run around,
I just stay home.

And sing a little love song,
My love, to myself.
If there's something that you want to hear,
You can sing it yourself.

'Cause everything is free now,
That what I say.
No one's got to listen to
The words in my head.
Someone hit the big score,
And I figured it out,
That we're gonna do it anyway,
Even if doesn't pay.


----------



## guitarman2 (Aug 25, 2006)

torndownunit said:


> Interesting article. It suggests people paying a $5 fee per month to their cable companies, and in turn all music file sharing would be legal.
> 
> I think it's one of the better ideas I have heard. I personally would have no problem paying it. Especially considering I would have access to ANY music I wanted, not just what a certain service offers.
> 
> ...


I wouldn't want to pay it. I buy my music. I buy almost all of my CD's at "The Beat Goes On". I get used CD's that are still in brand new shape an for less than half of the original new price.


----------



## torndownunit (May 14, 2006)

guitarman2 said:


> I wouldn't want to pay it. I buy my music. I buy almost all of my CD's at "The Beat Goes On". I get used CD's that are still in brand new shape an for less than half of the original new price.


I'd guess from your photo you are older than me. I can tell you a lot of people younger than me just don't really buy CD's anymore. They don't only download because it's free....the download because they only really listen to music on iPod's. My cousins who are early teens use iTunes music store constantly. They hardly own a single CD.

It's one of those major 'generation gap' issues. And again whether it's right or wrong is completely irrelevant because it's not going anywhere. That is the point a lot of people just can't understand. It will only get worse. Energy should be spent trying to work out a system that works.


----------



## Gilliangirl (Feb 26, 2006)

torndownunit said:


> Energy should be spent trying to work out a system that works.


I'm in support of finding a system that works. I am NOT in favour of creating another middleman, like ISP, who will find ways to milk the system.


----------



## torndownunit (May 14, 2006)

The problem is the ISP is the means for people to access these files. If a solution is created, it will have to involve them in SOME way. I don't really see any way around that.


----------



## david henman (Feb 3, 2006)

jroberts said:


> How about the fact that Canadian copyright law _expressly_ allows persons to download music for free in exchange for paying a levy on blank recording media.
> 
> Maybe you missed that one.
> 
> Whether that's a good system that properly compensates the artists is a debatable point, but that's the current state of the law in Canada. Don't just assume that all informaton relevant in the U.S. automatically applies in Canada.



...i assume nothing beyond the fact that if you download my music without paying for it, you are stealing from me.

-dh


----------



## david henman (Feb 3, 2006)

jroberts said:


> ...maybe stealing in the sense that the government is "stealing" from you by making you pay taxes or oil companies are "stealing" from you by selling gas at $1.10 per liter. Certainly not stealing in any legal sense. By speaking in those terms, you're not helping the debate. To the contrary, you're helping contribute to ignorance of the actual state of the law (which I think is important to understanding the issue).


...i do not begrudge my tax contribution. in fact, unlike the vast majority, i pay my taxes happily.

if it is legal to "download/share" my music without paying for it, something is very, very wrong.

-dh


----------



## Guest (Feb 26, 2008)

david henman said:


> if it is legal to "download/share" my music without paying for it, something is very, very wrong.


But David: we _did_ pay for it. We paid the government a tax on our blank media and in turn you, as a copyright holder, can apply to the CPCC to receive royalties from the big pool of money that the government collected. See: http://cpcc.ca/english/generalInfo.htm

It's not stealing. Your money is sitting there, waiting to be collected.

What the current system doesn't allow is _sharing back out_ the music. I can download all I want, but I can't let people download it from me. The proposed changes would make the share out action legal.


----------



## david henman (Feb 3, 2006)

...all this does sound promising. 

i just got my first royalty check of 08, and its the biggest one i've seen since the early 70s. fully half of it came from private downloading, so things are definitely looking up.

my feelings about consumers who believe they are somehow ENTITLED to acquire music without having to pay for it are unlikely to change, however.

-dh


----------



## Guest (Feb 27, 2008)

david henman said:


> i just got my first royalty check of 08, and its the biggest one i've seen since the early 70s. fully half of it came from private downloading, so things are definitely looking up.


Is that a tongue-in-cheek or serious comment?



> my feelings about consumers who believe they are somehow ENTITLED to acquire music without having to pay for it are unlikely to change, however.


As I said before: the music was paid for. The tax is collected as payment by your government. If you don't like the letter of the law, the rate of taxation, or the method for assigning royalties, you have the means to change it. Join a lobby group, talk to your MP, talk to the CPCC: get involved. Don't attack the consumer. They've done nothing wrong. You have your government to thank for that.


----------



## torndownunit (May 14, 2006)

I am only going by my personal experience, but I don't really come across that many people who feel that sense of entitlement. I totally have come across a few who directly say "I am never going to pay for music". I meet way more people like myself who just want a good system setup to buy music. It ranges from people with quality concerns, to people who won't use iTunes because they won't want to use AAC, to people who want more selection than what the download services have.

CD's in general are stupidly over-priced. I don't want to support the stores or the labels responsible for that. I still buy cd's directly from the bands at shows, but I will very rarely buy anything at a store.

I do download music. And if I find myself listening to an album a ton, I will buy it or go out to see that band live. But what appeals to me about P2P downloading is it's simplicity. I can search for any song/album/artist I want. There are no content restrictions, and there are no quality restrictions. That is what the music industry needs to offer.


----------



## Guest (Feb 27, 2008)

Paul said:


> Correct me if I'm wrong, but the permission for home copying, (which is granted by virtue of the blank media levy), is granted to people who have already purchased a "legitimate" version of the song.


It is my understanding that this statement is correct.



> Is there something that expressly permits unlimited downloading of copyrighted work?


Yes, the blank media levy and the CPCC guided re-distribution of that levy to copyright holders. But note: _downloading_ is legal, uploading is not. So a scheme where you are both downloading and uploading at the same time (bittorrent for example) is _not_ legal. You cannot make copyrighted material available for free, but you can download it if someone else has.


----------



## Warren (Mar 2, 2007)

Paul said:


> Correct me if I'm wrong, but the permission for home copying, (which is granted by virtue of the blank media levy), is granted to people who have already purchased a "legitimate" version of the song.
> 
> Is there something that expressly permits unlimited downloading of copyrighted work?


yep,

http://www.cb-cda.gc.ca/info/act-e.html#80

The Copyright Act. In this section it does not restrict personal copies. They're covered by the Levy.


----------



## Mahogany Martin (Mar 2, 2006)

On a side note, it's "funny" how in the '90's that "used CD shops/stores" made a ton of money reselling "used" CDs. Has any of this money made its way back to the artists? Nop! And nobody ever really talked about this. Is it because we felt that we were not stealing because we were actually paying for a "used" CD? I'm sure that some of the people claiming that it is wrong to not pay the artists for their work have visited and bought CDs from these used CD stores. And the problem was even around before with used record stores.

The advent of computers and widespread internet has contributed to eliminate the middle vulture "used CD/record shops". It's a complex issue because there'll always be a smart cookie who will see a way around an established system. It's called Capitalist.

Remaining hopeful,
Martin


----------



## Edutainment (Jan 29, 2008)

Music piracy is nothing new. Before the internet it was tapes, which allowed for easy copying. They said that would kill the music industry just like they're saying downloading from the internet will. I'd be willing to pay a reasonable fee to download music though.

I thought downloading music was legal in Canada though.


----------



## Guest (Feb 28, 2008)

Mahogany Martin said:


> On a side note, it's "funny" how in the '90's that "used CD shops/stores" made a ton of money reselling "used" CDs. Has any of this money made its way back to the artists? Nop! And nobody ever really talked about this. Is it because we felt that we were not stealing because we were actually paying for a "used" CD? I'm sure that some of the people claiming that it is wrong to not pay the artists for their work have visited and bought CDs from these used CD stores. And the problem was even around before with used record stores.


I do remember a period in the mid-90's, around 96-97, where there was a lot of ruckus from the music business about used CD stores and lost revenues. The end result? Once the physical property was transfered into the consumers hands it was there's to resell as they pleased. Paying the artist on a used CD sale would be like Ikea getting paid when you resell your futon.



> The advent of computers and widespread internet has contributed to eliminate the middle vulture "used CD/record shops".


Interesting, I never really have seen used CD stores as "vultures". Certainly no more vulture-like than say the antique shop or the Salvation Army clothing store. Thankfully we have a sane view of physical property. It's what do about digital property that we're working out. Some argue it's akin to physical property. Some say it's a license to a work you receive with a digital copy, not physical property, so it can't be treated the same. If we could come to a consensus on what a digital media file is exactly we might be able to converge on a solution faster.


----------



## Guest (Feb 28, 2008)

Edutainment said:


> Music piracy is nothing new. Before the internet it was tapes, which allowed for easy copying. They said that would kill the music industry just like they're saying downloading from the internet will. I'd be willing to pay a reasonable fee to download music though.


Tapes were a different concern though: they didn't make perfect copies. And both tapes and records degraded faster than a reasonably cared for Compact Disc. The loophole now is I can buy the disc, make a perfect copy of it, and then pass it along. With tapes or records I was left with either an imperfect copy that degraded with use (a tape) or no copy at all. So less of a concern. And the used bins were filled with partially degraded originals.



> I thought downloading music was legal in Canada though.


It is. Uploading (i.e. sharing back out, making available) the music is not.


----------



## Guest (Feb 28, 2008)

As an interesting addendum to this thread here's an Ars Technica report from a Digital Music Forum East. What did Ted Cohen, former EMI exec, say in his opening keynote: "music 1.0 is dead". Check it out here.


----------



## Guest (Feb 28, 2008)

The day of getting money for a recorded work is over. If they wanted to preserve that gravy train they should have stuck to vinyl, but the lure of easy money was too much for them so out came tape and so on and so forth. You want to make money , go out and play, just like teachers go out and teach, doctors go out and heal, plumbers go out and pipe. That's how musicians used to do it in the old days. Nothing wrong with work. If you sell something on the side, more power to you, but remember its just gravy.


----------



## Mahogany Martin (Mar 2, 2006)

iaresee said:


> I do remember a period in the mid-90's, around 96-97, where there was a lot of ruckus from the music business about used CD stores and lost revenues. The end result? Once the physical property was transfered into the consumers hands it was there's to resell as they pleased. Paying the artist on a used CD sale would be like Ikea getting paid when you resell your futon.
> 
> 
> Interesting, I never really have seen used CD stores as "vultures". Certainly no more vulture-like than say the antique shop or the Salvation Army clothing store. Thankfully we have a sane view of physical property. It's what do about digital property that we're working out. Some argue it's akin to physical property. Some say it's a license to a work you receive with a digital copy, not physical property, so it can't be treated the same. If we could come to a consensus on what a digital media file is exactly we might be able to converge on a solution faster.


I kinda remember that too. The mid to late 90's is when I finally clicked that this used cd business had been the beginning of a complex issue that was to come which we see today: the digital media file. I could have left "vulture" out of this (and I thank you for keeping me in line); it's just phenomenal the money some of these stores made and I will still throw in here that they made all of this money with the work of musicians/songwriters.

It seems that the assumption today is that if a songwriter wants to make money from his songs that s/he will have to get out there and tour. What if a songwriter is not necessarily interested in touring? Artists are not financially recognized with an 8-to-5 pay cheque and should therefore be remunerated from the use of their creation.

What is a song and most importantly, what does it do to the listener? It makes one feel good, it passes the time, etc. If someone does some work for me (electrical, woodworking, stack the shelves at the supermarket, cuts my hair and so on) then I have to pay for his/her services. The songwriter is not in the room, but when I listen to his/her song, it is still a service (I'd even say a privilege) and there should be a way for me to pay him or her, and not the vultures. Oh oh, here I go again :smile:

The day I finally have the capability of digitizing my futon, allowing me to download copies whenever I need one or share my digital file with family and friends so that they too can have a nice uncomfortable futon, I bet you Ikea won't like it too. :smile:


----------



## david henman (Feb 3, 2006)

konasexone said:


> You want to make money, go out and play, just like teachers go out and teach, doctors go out and heal, plumbers go out and pipe.


...what if you are a songwriter, but not a player or performer?

some people consider the song/composition to be an important part of the equation, for some reason...

should we say to the songwriter/composer: "tough shit, buddy! your craft suddenly has no value, no financial worth. go out and get a real job!" ????

songwriters write. composers compose.

isn't that what they are supposed to do?

tell me, what am i missing here?

-dh


----------



## torndownunit (May 14, 2006)

People forget radio's part in all of this as well. Modern radio sucks. It's not a platform for new artists to get their material out there. They play the same dozen songs over and over again. If radio actually showcased new artists, artists might have better luck selling their materials through their websites etc. Right now only established artists who no longer require radio are able to do that.

I absolutely love Satellite Radio. If you want to hear good new music, it's the place to go. I think it, and some type of P2P system that works are the future of music personally. The entire industry is basically in the middle of an overhaul. The whole established model just does not work anymore. From the promotion, to the distribution....to everything.


----------



## Guest (Feb 28, 2008)

torndownunit said:


> People forget radio's part in all of this as well. Modern radio sucks. It's not a platform for new artists to get their material out there.


Ahem...yup, radio can still work for new artists. It's not like is used to be for sure, DJs don't control the content, program directors do. But radio still makes or breaks the new artists. It's just a little more comparmentalized. And you need a PR company to send out your tracks.



> I absolutely love Satellite Radio. If you want to hear good new music, it's the place to go. I think it, and some type of P2P system that works are the future of music personally. The entire industry is basically in the middle of an overhaul. The whole established model just does not work anymore. From the promotion, to the distribution....to everything.


Satellite radio is the shit for a few reasons: the program is fantastically varied and abundant. The tracking of song plays is perfect. No more SOCAN-sampling-algorithms. If your track got played: you're getting paid. Sound quality is generally superb. It's very close the pay-one-price-for-streaming model. If you could control a channel, program the playlist yourself, it'd be the perfect pay-one-price-for-streaing model. I don't have to have a computer to do it, just this friendly little unit that travels with me.

Yup, satellite radio is definitely part of Music 2.0.


----------



## david henman (Feb 3, 2006)

People forget radio's part in all of this as well. Modern radio sucks. It's not a platform for new artists to get their material out there. They play the same dozen songs over and over again. If radio actually showcased new artists, artists might have better luck selling their materials through their websites etc. Right now only established artists who no longer require radio are able to do that.

_...i agree. there are many who are to blame, including radio, record companies, etc. i'm not sure its helpful, however._

I absolutely love Satellite Radio. If you want to hear good new music, it's the place to go. I think it, and some type of P2P system that works are the future of music personally. The entire industry is basically in the middle of an overhaul. The whole established model just does not work anymore. From the promotion, to the distribution....to everything.

_...i am absolutely addicted to xm radio, despite their pathetic excuse for a folk channel - i gotta start an email campaign about that..._

-dh


----------



## torndownunit (May 14, 2006)

I can honestly say I haven't listened to the radio in over a year. I can't take the non-stop commercials, and the same songs over and over again. I know there are good college stations, but where I live you don't get many of them. And I know the CBC is still good. I just can't be bothered with radio though.

I am hoping XM and Sirious merge as they have been discussing. They are both great services, and I don't think both of them will last through the growing stage if they don't merge. They spent too much money initially. Plus according to merger plans, they will offer some tiered services where you can pick and choose which channels you want. I personally like the XM music channels, but I enjoy some of the talk radio on Sirious, so that would be kinda cool.


----------



## Jeff Flowerday (Jan 23, 2006)

I must be the only one that hasn't been impressed with Satellite Radio. Maybe it was the particular stations but they started repeating too fast.


----------



## torndownunit (May 14, 2006)

This is a little different case though. It's a new technology and both companies likely won't survive. It doesn't mean there can't be other companies once sattellite takes off (if it ever does). Clear channel just bought up every existing property they could in an already established media form. It's not really a monopoly in the satellite case.

It's a technology that has potential though. It should be encouraged any way possible.


----------



## Guest (Feb 29, 2008)

david henman said:


> ...what if you are a songwriter, but not a player or performer?
> 
> some people consider the song/composition to be an important part of the equation, for some reason...
> 
> ...


Not at all. Let the artist who wants it pay for it just like a comedian pays his joke writers. Being paid for recorded works is a fairly new concept if you look at the profession from a historical perspective. It worked for a while but now the river flows in everyone's back yard, its supply and demand and right now the supply side is abundant. Had they stuck to vinyl , we'd still be making cassette tapes like the old days. It wasn't a big sin then and you'll be hard pressed to find a pro who hadn't done it himself, very hard pressed! The sin is that rich people are getting plucked and plucked good, and boys and girls they're is no bigger sin in this world than stealing food from the rich man's mouth. You can kill and get away easier.


----------



## suttree (Aug 17, 2007)

i had xm. plus side: graham nash, bob dylan and tom petty had shows that were downright excellent. yoko ono's show was by far the most challenging to the listener, and i really looked forward to what she brought to light each week. on the downside: everything else. shallow artist pool, very little diversity between channels. the comedy channel was very disappointing as well. a shame really.. i cancelled my service. 

for anyone who lives in alberta, i miss CKUA!!!!! greatest radio station in the known universe.


----------



## david henman (Feb 3, 2006)

konasexone said:


> Not at all. Let the artist who wants it pay for it just like a comedian pays his joke writers. Being paid for recorded works is a fairly new concept if you look at the profession from a historical perspective. It worked for a while but now the river flows in everyone's back yard, its supply and demand and right now the supply side is abundant. Had they stuck to vinyl , we'd still be making cassette tapes like the old days. It wasn't a big sin then and you'll be hard pressed to find a pro who hadn't done it himself, very hard pressed! The sin is that rich people are getting plucked and plucked good, and boys and girls they're is no bigger sin in this world than stealing food from the rich man's mouth. You can kill and get away easier.


...maybe its just me, but i see a rather huge disparity between making a cassette copy of a song, and file sharing hundreds or thousands of copies of said song.

the rich man comment completely eluded me...are you saying that dowloading is a good idea because only the rich artist's get dinged?

-dh


----------



## david henman (Feb 3, 2006)

Jeff Flowerday said:


> I must be the only one that hasn't been impressed with Satellite Radio. Maybe it was the particular stations but they started repeating too fast.


...as a fan of both alt-country and bluegrass, i can't get enough. there are also some great world music and jazz stations.

i haven't heard that much repetition, at least in the aforementioned formats.

-dh


----------



## Guest (Feb 29, 2008)

No Dave , the rich business man who handed out the "Motown" deals is getting screwed. The artist got rich by touring and that's just, remember all by hard work. Secondly, copying tapes or mp3's is the same thing, its still so-called "theft". The only difference is now instead of going door to door we send it on a wire, but its essentially the same crime. The newest form of it is simply more efficient, that's all, and who can blame people for using it. It was practically handed to them for instant consumption right? Nobody complained about tape recordings because they hardly made a dent (still highly immoral). Go back to vinyl and most of this goes away.


----------



## david henman (Feb 3, 2006)

konasexone said:


> Nobody complained about tape recordings because they hardly made a dent (still highly immoral).



...my point.

who is "dave"?

-dh


----------

