Canadian Musicians propose piracy compromise

Voranth

Basically, if all Canadian ISPs add an extra $5 to every Internet bill, The Songwriters Association of Canada will stop caring about illegal music downloads.

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

An interesting proposal...kinda screws over people who still actually pay for music though, eh?

Aegis

Umm...filesharing of music is legal in Canada. Plus we already have an extra charge on the purchase of blank CDs in place that cover/directly go to royalites to music authors (I'm fuzzy on the specifics) specifically for this purpose.

wazilla

VAT taxes on blank media are great. And you thought you could buy cheap digital storage devices... for shame, pirate!

zeeny

Give us 50 million per month, and we won't..like...well, you know.....do stuff about people who would never have resulted in a revenue for us anyway and we can not penalize with the current legislation?

Are they on crack?

Edit: Also, that's a disgusting article, misrepresenting a problem and pushing elephant lies while using a language that is supposed to persuade you how good the idea is. It reads like a paid advertisement.

wazilla

I'd never pay for a Lamborghini (see sig). Do you see where this is going?

Azio

Yes, five dollars a month for the musicians, and also ten dollars a month for the MPAA, and five for the TV industry, and so on and so forth.

This is a terrible idea.

Aegis

Azio wrote: »

Yes, five dollars a month for the musicians, and also ten dollars a month for the MPAA, and five for the TV industry, and so on and so forth.

This is a terrible idea.

Now, while the article itself appears terribly spun towards the RIAA, the idea of a blank one-time charge that goes directly to musicians that create the music (similar to the tax on CDs already in place) I'd be in agreement with. Provided it could be implemented to ensure that the groups such as the RIAA get not a single penny out of it, and instead the actual musicians get the money. And I don't think that's going to happen by what the article is proposing.

Richy

It also means that people who do not download music are paying the price, which is just wrong.

Azio

No. The vast majority of Internet users do not pirate. It's unfair to make everyone, including non-pirates, subsidize the recording industry's failure to adapt. Not to mention everyone else who feels they could lose money from the free exchange of content.

werehippy

Aegis wrote: »

Azio wrote: »

Yes, five dollars a month for the musicians, and also ten dollars a month for the MPAA, and five for the TV industry, and so on and so forth.

This is a terrible idea.

Now, while the article itself appears terribly spun towards the RIAA, the idea of a blank one-time charge that goes directly to musicians that create the music (similar to the tax on CDs already in place) I'd be in agreement with. Provided it could be implemented to ensure that the groups such as the RIAA get not a single penny out of it, and instead the actual musicians get the money. And I don't think that's going to happen by what the article is proposing.

The problem with that (besides the fact that it's just demanding everyone sign up for a music service) is that how exactly do you split the revenue? Records sales? Downloads? There's no really good answer.

zeeny

wazilla wrote: »

I'd never pay for a Lamborghini (see sig). Do you see where this is going?

Not really. Please, do tell.

Azio

Plus this would add to the telecoms' accounting costs, which would be passed on to the consumer in the form of a $2.50 "processing fee".

Aegis

werehippy wrote: »

Aegis wrote: »

Azio wrote: »

Yes, five dollars a month for the musicians, and also ten dollars a month for the MPAA, and five for the TV industry, and so on and so forth.

This is a terrible idea.

Now, while the article itself appears terribly spun towards the RIAA, the idea of a blank one-time charge that goes directly to musicians that create the music (similar to the tax on CDs already in place) I'd be in agreement with. Provided it could be implemented to ensure that the groups such as the RIAA get not a single penny out of it, and instead the actual musicians get the money. And I don't think that's going to happen by what the article is proposing.

The problem with that (besides the fact that it's just demanding everyone sign up for a music service) is that how exactly do you split the revenue? Records sales? Downloads? There's no really good answer.

Work with the File-Sharing program companies that are typically used (LimeWire, Kazaa, etc.) to have them have the cost implemented such that the person prior to be able to use these File-sharing services, has to sign up and pay what was proposed? It would solve the issue of mandating it on everyone, at the least.

Nova_C

How would one get access to this money, anyway? It talks about the 'world's repertoire' of music - does that mean Canadians will be subsidizing artists from the US, Britain and every other country? And if I create a song (That sucks since I have about 0 musical ability) and put it up on the internet, do I get to claim a piece of this pie? Why or why not?

EDIT: Also, I generally pass on iTunes and still buy my CDs from Amazon - I actually prefer to get the CD itself even though they all end up in a box. Does this mean not only do we get less choice, but retailers get to take it up the ass? iTunes gets to take it up the ass?

Corlis

Aegis wrote: »

werehippy wrote: »

Aegis wrote: »

Azio wrote: »

Yes, five dollars a month for the musicians, and also ten dollars a month for the MPAA, and five for the TV industry, and so on and so forth.

This is a terrible idea.

Now, while the article itself appears terribly spun towards the RIAA, the idea of a blank one-time charge that goes directly to musicians that create the music (similar to the tax on CDs already in place) I'd be in agreement with. Provided it could be implemented to ensure that the groups such as the RIAA get not a single penny out of it, and instead the actual musicians get the money. And I don't think that's going to happen by what the article is proposing.

The problem with that (besides the fact that it's just demanding everyone sign up for a music service) is that how exactly do you split the revenue? Records sales? Downloads? There's no really good answer.

Work with the File-Sharing program companies that are typically used (LimeWire, Kazaa, etc.) to have them have the cost implemented such that the person prior to be able to use these File-sharing services, has to sign up and pay what was proposed? It would solve the issue of mandating it on everyone, at the least.

... at which point everyone immediately switches over to other File-Sharing companies, preferably ones based overseas?

shryke

werehippy wrote: »

Aegis wrote: »

Azio wrote: »

Yes, five dollars a month for the musicians, and also ten dollars a month for the MPAA, and five for the TV industry, and so on and so forth.

This is a terrible idea.

Now, while the article itself appears terribly spun towards the RIAA, the idea of a blank one-time charge that goes directly to musicians that create the music (similar to the tax on CDs already in place) I'd be in agreement with. Provided it could be implemented to ensure that the groups such as the RIAA get not a single penny out of it, and instead the actual musicians get the money. And I don't think that's going to happen by what the article is proposing.

The problem with that (besides the fact that it's just demanding everyone sign up for a music service) is that how exactly do you split the revenue? Records sales? Downloads? There's no really good answer.

Evenly of course. So the loser musicians no ones pirating anyway can get some money.

I've read a bunch of articles on this and the blank storage media tax too. They're ALWAYS supported by shitty "never heard you on the radio" bands who no ones downloading anyway.

ege02

Azio wrote: »

It's unfair to make everyone, including non-pirates, subsidize the recording industry's failure to adapt.

The last part, especially.

Why are we punishing the consumer for the shortcomings of the music industry?

Feral

In this system, ideally musicians get paid and consumers get carte blanche to listen to whatever music they want.

I like it.

As long as it doesn't end up perverted by the record industry's burning desire to fuck everybody and their mother over.

Incenjucar

Wouldn't it be easier to just have an online subscription service that costs $5 a month to access, and then just GET OVER the people who aren't willing to use it?

Feral

So the record industry can cripple it with overly onerous DRM and restrictive EULAs and then blame their failure on the piracy bogeyman when the consumers fail to adopt their broken service?

Incenjucar

...Why would you bother with that if anyone who would pay for it can access every single song ever for no additional charge...?

It's like putting DRM on one of those "Please Donate" albums.

Scooter

Nova_C wrote: »

How would one get access to this money, anyway? It talks about the 'world's repertoire' of music - does that mean Canadians will be subsidizing artists from the US, Britain and every other country? And if I create a song (That sucks since I have about 0 musical ability) and put it up on the internet, do I get to claim a piece of this pie? Why or why not?

EDIT: Also, I generally pass on iTunes and still buy my CDs from Amazon - I actually prefer to get the CD itself even though they all end up in a box. Does this mean not only do we get less choice, but retailers get to take it up the ass? iTunes gets to take it up the ass?

That's the biggest problem. So the RIAA gets tons of loot, good for them. What happens to musicians who aren't in the RIAA? Not only do they get screwed out of the tax money, they get royally fucked over because all Canadians can legally download their music whether they want it out or not, whether they're Canadian or not.

And so the message is, if you want to make money selling music...you have to join the RIAA. Whoo.

Scalfin

Damn, I was hoping this was about a deal between the mounties and Jack Sparrow.

Page-

I've been half-following these guys for a while now. and saw the proposall linked on the website. I really don't know. The way the way it's worded seems to be strange to me. File-sharing isn't really illegal in Canada, but they're talking about making it explicitly legal:

5. The new right would make it legal to share music between two or more parties, whether over Peer to Peer networks, wireless networks, email, CD, DVD, hard drives etc. Distinct from private copying, this new right would authorize the sharing of music with other individuals.

6. In exchange for this sharing of their work, Creators and rights holders would be entitled to receive a monthly license fee from each internet and wireless account in Canada.

7. We propose a licence fee of $5.00 per internet subscription, per month. Payment of this fee would remove the stigma of illegality from file sharing. In addition, it would represent excellent value to the consumer, since this fee would grant access to the majority of the world’s repertoire of music. Existing download subscription services generally charge considerably more than $5.00 per month, while offering a mere fraction of the file-sharing repertoire.

8. In addition, this would present a major financial improvement for the music industry. Since the license fee would be paid by all internet and wireless accounts, the amount of income generated annually could adequately compensate the industry for years of declining sales and lost revenues, and would dramatically enhance current legal digital music income. Sales of physical product would continue to earn substantial amounts, albeit gradually decreasing. Masters would continue to be licensed to movies and television. Radio would continue to sell advertising and pay royalties on music.

So, you pay the fee and then you can download anything you want, as much as you want, and everyone's happy? Sure, why not? I'd still buy CDs, if they moved to the "value added" system the music industry has been talking about for years. And since most of the artists listed in the Coalition make their money through touring and not record sales, it's win-win-win.

I guess what their ideal would be is that people could freely download an album, and would then go to a show, or go buy a CD that would be bundled with bonus material, like live footage, music videos, making-of docs, and interviews. It would also give them a higher quality, play anywhere format that could then be ripped at higher bitrates than your average downloaded song.

It might work.

Nova_C

Page- wrote: »

Eh... sure, why not?

Look to my post and answer my concerns. If you can't - THAT'S why not. Also, the guy that quoted me brought up probably an even bigger concern - this makes the RIAA even more dominant and powerful. This ENSURES that small time musicians cannot make any money trying to sell their music. This means that touring is the only way and if they are unable to tour for any reason and RIAA won't sign a contract with them then there is no way for them to be paid for their music.

Basically, this allows the RIAA to turn around, pirate small time musicians and then make money off their music by adding it to the pile already available. This is win-win ONLY for corporate music. Indie music takes it up the ass from this.

EDIT: Nice ninja edit - but I got your quoted first! :P

Page-

Nova_C wrote: »

Page- wrote: »

Eh... sure, why not?

Look to my post and answer my concerns. If you can't - THAT'S why not. Also, the guy that quoted me brought up probably an even bigger concern - this makes the RIAA even more dominant and powerful. This ENSURES that small time musicians cannot make any money trying to sell their music. This means that touring is the only way and if they are unable to tour for any reason and RIAA won't sign a contract with them then there is no way for them to be paid for their music.

Basically, this allows the RIAA to turn around, pirate small time musicians and then make money off their music by adding it to the pile already available. This is win-win ONLY for corporate music. Indie music takes it up the ass from this.

EDIT: Nice ninja edit - but I got your quoted first! :P

Well, this isn't the RIAA, it's the SAC. And they wouldn't have thrown this out there if they didn't have, or weren't looking at, ways to distribute the cash.

And indie musicians are already screwed over by the big companies. That just doesn't follow. In fact, I'm sure that the indie CD sales would be the least hurt, and the most helped. Fact is, if you're an indie band you aren't going to be getting help from a big company, and you aren't going to have the money to advertise. If you could get viral, spread through word of mouth, you'd make more CD sales.

And most artists already make most of their money from ticket sales, which is pissing the record companies off because they don't get a cut. The thing is, the record companies have a stranglehold on advertisement and the like, and they choose who gets to be the next top-40 hit.

I'll tell you this: I haven't listened to the radio or watched TV 5 or 6 years, but my interest in modern music is higher than it's ever been. Ask me what the top 10 ringtones are, I couldn't tell you. Play me the top 10 in some weekend radio countdown and I might know one song, but I find new bands and artists weekly, and I support local musicians like I never could in the mainstream music world.

The indie music scene is thriving in Canada, has been for years, and that is despite the record industry. Ask Broken Social Scene if they care about CD sales. Ask The Most Serene Republic how much their radio play is helping them. Ask Feist why she "sold out" (I dont think she did) to pay her bills. It wasn't because of downloading.

Edit: You got me! But I have plausible deniability!

ege02

Page- wrote: »

I guess what their ideal would be is that people could freely download an album, and would then go to a show, or go buy a CD that would be bundled with bonus material, like live footage, music videos, making-of docs, and interviews. It would also give them a higher quality, play anywhere format that could then be ripped at higher bitrates than your average downloaded song.

Eh... sure, why not?

Yes, exactly.

There is a great blog post written about this actually by Seth Godin.

Spoilering it because it's long. Emphasis mine.

Seth Godin wrote:

Music lessons

Things you can learn from the music business (as it falls apart)

The first rule is so important, it’s rule 0:

0. The new thing is never as good as the old thing, at least right now.
Soon, the new thing will be better than the old thing will be. But if you wait until then, it’s going to be too late. Feel free to wax nostalgic about the old thing, but don’t fool yourself into believing it’s going to be here forever. It won’t.

1. Past performance is no guarantee of future success
Every single industry changes and, eventually, fades. Just because you made money doing something a certain way yesterday, there’s no reason to believe you’ll succeed at it tomorrow.

The music business had a spectacular run alongside the baby boomers. Starting with the Beatles and Dylan, they just kept minting money. The co-incidence of expanding purchasing power of teens along with the birth of rock, the invention of the transistor and changing social mores meant a long, long growth curve.

As a result, the music business built huge systems. They created top-heavy organizations, dedicated superstores, a loss-leader touring industry, extraordinarily high profit margins, MTV and more. It was a well-greased system, but the key question: why did it deserve to last forever?

It didn’t. Yours doesn’t either.

2. Copy protection in a digital age is a pipe dream
If the product you make becomes digital, expect that the product you make will be copied.

There’s a paradox in the music business that is mirrored in many industries: you want ubiquity, not obscurity, yet digital distribution devalues your core product.

Remember, the music business is the one that got in trouble for bribing disk jockeys to play their music on the radio. They are the ones that spent millions to make (free) videos for MTV. And yet once the transmission became digital, they understood that there’s not a lot of reason to buy a digital version (via a cumbersome expensive process) when the digital version is free (and easier).

Most items of value derive that value from scarcity. Digital changes that, and you can derive value from ubiquity now.

The solution isn’t to somehow try to become obscure, to get your song off the (digital) radio. The solution is to change your business.

You used to sell plastic and vinyl. Now, you can sell interactivity and souvenirs.

3. Interactivity can’t be copied
Products that are digital and also include interaction thrive on centralization and do better and better as the market grows in size (consider Facebook or Basecamp).

Music is social. Music is current and everchanging. And most of all, music requires musicians. The winners in the music business of tomorrow are individuals and organizations that create communities, connect people, spread ideas and act as the hub of the wheel... indispensable and well-compensated.

4. Permission is the asset of the future
For generations, businesses had no idea who their end users were. No ability to reach through the record store and figure out who was buying that Rolling Stones album, no way to know who bought this book or that vase.

Today, of course, permission is an asset to be earned. The ability (not the right, but the privilege) of delivering anticipated, personal and relevant messages to people who want to get them. For ten years, the music business has been steadfastly avoiding this opportunity.

It’s interesting though, because many musicians have NOT been avoiding it. Many musicians have understood that all they need to make a (very good) living is to have 10,000 fans. 10,000 people who look forward to the next record, who are willing to trek out to the next concert. Add 7 fans a day and you’re done in 5 years. Set for life. A life making music for your fans, not finding fans for your music.

The opportunity of digital distribution is this:

When you can distribute something digitally, for free, it will spread (if it’s good). If it spreads, you can use it as a vehicle to allow people to come back to you and register, to sign up, to give you permission to interact and to keep them in the loop.

Many authors (I’m on that list) have managed to build an entire career around this idea. So have management consultants and yes, insurance salespeople. Not by viewing the spread of digital artifacts as an inconvenient tactic, but as the core of their new businesses.

5. A frightened consumer is not a happy consumer.
I shouldn’t have to say this, but here goes: suing people is like going to war. If you’re going to go to war with tens of thousands of your customers every year, don’t be surprised if they start treating you like the enemy.

6. This is a big one: The best time to change your business model is while you still have momentum.
It’s not so easy for an unknown artist to start from scratch and build a career self-publishing. Not so easy for her to find fans, one at a time, and build an audience. Very, very easy for a record label or a top artist to do so. So, the time to jump was yesterday. Too late. Okay, how about today?

The sooner you do it, the more assets and momentum you have to put to work.

7. Remember the Bob Dylan rule: it’s not just a record, it’s a movement.
Bob and his handlers have a long track record of finding movements. Anti-war movements, sure, but also rock movies, the Grateful Dead, SACDs, Christian rock and Apple fanboys. What Bob has done (and I think he’s done it sincerely, not as a calculated maneuver) is seek out groups that want to be connected and he works to become the connecting the point.

By being open to choices of format, to points of view, to moments in time, Bob Dylan never said, “I make vinyl records that cost money to listen to.” He understands at some level that music is often the soundtrack for something else.

I think the same thing can be true for chefs and churches and charities and politicians and makers of medical devices. People pay a premium for a story, every time.

8. Don’t panic when the new business model isn’t as ‘clean’ as the old one
It’s not easy to give up the idea of manufacturing CDs with a 90% gross margin and switching to a blended model of concerts and souvenirs, of communities and greeting cards and special events and what feels like gimmicks. I know.

Get over it. It’s the only option if you want to stay in this business. You’re just not going to sell a lot of CDs in five years, are you?

If there’s a business here, first few in will find it, the rest lose everything.

9. Read the writing on the wall.
Hey, guys, I’m not in the music business and even I’ve been writing about this for years. I even started a record label five years ago to make the point. Industries don’t die by surprise. It’s not like you didn’t know it was coming. It's not like you didn't know who to call (or hire).

This isn’t about having a great idea (it almost never is). The great ideas are out there, for free, on your neighborhood blog. Nope, this is about taking initiative and making things happen.

The last person to leave the current record business won’t be the smartest and he won’t be the most successful, either. Getting out first and staking out the new territory almost always pays off.

10. Don’t abandon the Long Tail
Everyone in the hit business thinks they understand the secret: just make hits. After all, if you do the math, it shows that if you just made hits, you’d be in fat city.

Of course, the harder you try to just make hits, the less likely you are to make any hits at all. Movies, records, books... the blockbusters always seem to be surprises. Surprise hit cookbooks, even.

Instead, in an age when it’s cheaper than ever to design something, to make something, to bring something to market, the smart strategy is to have a dumb strategy. Keep your costs low and go with your instincts, even when everyone says you’re wrong. Do a great job, not a perfect one. Bring things to market, the right market, and let them find their audience.

Stick to the knitting has never been more wrong. Instead, find products your customers want. Don’t underestimate them. They’re more catholic in their tastes than you give them credit for.

11. Understand the power of digital
Try to imagine something like this happening ten years ago: An eleven-year-old kid wakes up on a Saturday morning, gets his allowance, then, standing in his pajamas, buys a Bon Jovi song for a buck.

Compare this to hassling for a ride, driving to the mall, finding the album in question, finding the $14 to pay for it and then driving home.

You may believe that your business doesn’t lend itself to digital transactions. Many do. If you’ve got a business that doesn’t thrive on digital, it might not grow as fast as you like... Maybe you need to find a business that does thrive on digital.

12. Celebrity is underrated
The music business has always created celebrities. And each celebrity has profited for decades from that fame. Frank Sinatra is dead and he's still profiting. Elvis is still alive and he's certainly still profiting.

The music business has done a poor job of leveraging that celebrity and catching the value it creates. Many businesses now have the power to create their own micro-celebrities. These individuals capture attention and generate trust, two critical elements in growing profits.

13. Value is created when you go from many to few, and vice versa
The music business has thousands of labels and tens of thousands of copyright holders. It's a mess.

And there's just one iTunes music store. Consolidation pays.

At the same time, there are other industries where there are just a few major players and the way to profit is to create splinters and niches.

14. Whenever possible, sell subscriptions
Few businesses can successfully sell subscriptions (magazines being the very best example), but when you can, the whole world changes. HBO, for example, is able to spend its money making shows for its viewers rather than working to find viewers for every show.

The biggest opportunity for the music business is to combine permission with subscription. The possibilities are endless. And I know it's hard to believe, but the good old days are yet to happen.

Ketherial

im a terrible musician but a fantastic programmer.

i can program this little bot thing that repeatedly downloads my own song, deletes it, and downloads it again, repeat, rinse, 24 hours a day. i install this bot on as many computers as i can, family, friends, internet cafes that have bad security, you name it.

i contact the music association and show them how trillions of downloads of my song are being made. i demand entry into the association and a piece of the profits. in fact, i want a big fucking piece.

not only do i slow down the entire fucking interweb, i want to be paid for it.

how do you stop me and others like me?

we discussed this idea in my ip law class about 6 years ago. it was a bad idea then and it's a bad idea now.

Echo

Voranth wrote: »

Basically, if all Canadian ISPs add an extra $5 to every Internet bill, The Songwriters Association of Canada will stop caring about illegal music downloads.

Unless they also stop caring about uploads it changes nothing. That's what filesharing is: both uploading and downloading.

The IFPI made similar noises here in Sweden, saying that this was the first time anyone ever suggested it, which was of course a blatant lie. ISPs have suggested that for years to get the lawsuitograms stopped.

Duki

This is a terrible idea. What an unnecessary idea for a goddamn... tax, I guess, although it technically isn't. Forcing internet users to subsidise an industry they may not even actively steal from or even partake in entirely just because record label CEOs had their heads up their asses for the past 15 years?

How about get the fuck out. If any ISP provider actually implements this crap, I'd take advantage of the beauty of the free market and jump ship like that.

KrunkMcGrunk

I give this thread three more pages before it turns into a debate about what actually constitutes piracy, and how theft differs from copyright infringement.

Aegis

Duki wrote: »

This is a terrible idea. What an unnecessary idea for a goddamn... tax, I guess, although it technically isn't. Forcing internet users to subsidise an industry they may not even actively steal from or even partake in entirely just because record label CEOs had their heads up their asses for the past 15 years?

How about get the fuck out. If any ISP provider actually implements this crap, I'd take advantage of the beauty of the free market and jump ship like that.

On a slight tangent, this may be harder to do than one might figure. Considering there is a rather large amount of rural communities within Canada and those tend to only have one regional, small-ish ISP, the feasability of just switching to a different ISP that may not service your area could be troublesome.

Gnome-Interruptus

zeeny wrote: »

wazilla wrote: »

I'd never pay for a Lamborghini (see sig). Do you see where this is going?

Not really. Please, do tell.

I cant believe someone needed this explained.

Wazilla would never pay the purchase price of a Lamborghini, in fact, chances are good that Wazilla would never pay the list price or any amount of money for a Lamborghini outside of a retardedly low sum that is not at all commesurate with market value (or if Wazilla was to suddenly have enough money that a Lamborghini became an easily affordable luxury item).

If Wazilla found a way to recieve or own a Lamborghini without purchasing it, this does not constitute a lost sale for Lamborghini or any dealership that deals in Lamborghini's, or any other Lamborghini seller.

The RIAA is claiming that every downloaded song is a lost sale. Ignoring the fact that the vast majority of downloads are not from potential customers. If you removed all avenues of "piracy" and gave a "pirate" the option of purchasing a song or not having it, the majority would just not purchase it and go without.

I put piracy and pirate in quotations because it really doesnt accurately describe the crime that is being committed, but it is the term that has been adopted for copyright infringement.

Gnome-Interruptus

Also, I would very much like to find out what the fuck prevents NBC et cetera from allowing Canadians to browse their online libraries.

We are allowed to watch the commercials before the clip, but the clip itself is omitted.

Nova_C

Gnome-Interruptus wrote: »

Also, I would very much like to find out what the fuck prevents NBC et cetera from allowing Canadians to browse their online libraries.

We are allowed to watch the commercials before the clip, but the clip itself is omitted.

IP addresses are regional. So Canadian ISPs have a set of addresses they can use, as do American ones. NBC just checks your IP, is it an American IP? No? No video for you.

I know, I hate that too. :P

shryke

NBC et all don't own the broadcasting rights for those shows in Canada.Global/CTV/Space/whoever do.

kdrudy

Gnome-Interruptus wrote: »

zeeny wrote: »

wazilla wrote: »

I'd never pay for a Lamborghini (see sig). Do you see where this is going?

Not really. Please, do tell.

I cant believe someone needed this explained.

Wazilla would never pay the purchase price of a Lamborghini, in fact, chances are good that Wazilla would never pay the list price or any amount of money for a Lamborghini outside of a retardedly low sum that is not at all commesurate with market value (or if Wazilla was to suddenly have enough money that a Lamborghini became an easily affordable luxury item).

If Wazilla found a way to recieve or own a Lamborghini without purchasing it, this does not constitute a lost sale for Lamborghini or any dealership that deals in Lamborghini's, or any other Lamborghini seller.

The RIAA is claiming that every downloaded song is a lost sale. Ignoring the fact that the vast majority of downloads are not from potential customers. If you removed all avenues of "piracy" and gave a "pirate" the option of purchasing a song or not having it, the majority would just not purchase it and go without.

I put piracy and pirate in quotations because it really doesnt accurately describe the crime that is being committed, but it is the term that has been adopted for copyright infringement.

See, that whole deal doesn't obviously follow from what he said, it wasn't as painfully obvious as you seemed to think it should be.

shryke

kdrudy wrote: »

Gnome-Interruptus wrote: »

zeeny wrote: »

wazilla wrote: »

I'd never pay for a Lamborghini (see sig). Do you see where this is going?

Not really. Please, do tell.

I cant believe someone needed this explained.

Wazilla would never pay the purchase price of a Lamborghini, in fact, chances are good that Wazilla would never pay the list price or any amount of money for a Lamborghini outside of a retardedly low sum that is not at all commesurate with market value (or if Wazilla was to suddenly have enough money that a Lamborghini became an easily affordable luxury item).

If Wazilla found a way to recieve or own a Lamborghini without purchasing it, this does not constitute a lost sale for Lamborghini or any dealership that deals in Lamborghini's, or any other Lamborghini seller.

The RIAA is claiming that every downloaded song is a lost sale. Ignoring the fact that the vast majority of downloads are not from potential customers. If you removed all avenues of "piracy" and gave a "pirate" the option of purchasing a song or not having it, the majority would just not purchase it and go without.

I put piracy and pirate in quotations because it really doesnt accurately describe the crime that is being committed, but it is the term that has been adopted for copyright infringement.

See, that whole deal doesn't obviously follow from what he said, it wasn't as painfully obvious as you seemed to think it should be.

It's fairly obvious. Not every stolen item is a lost sale. It's the same in any industry.

an_alt

Ah, quality reporting from the star.

Does anyone know how the media tax gets distributed beyond the general sense of it?

Scooter

shryke wrote: »

kdrudy wrote: »

Gnome-Interruptus wrote: »

zeeny wrote: »

wazilla wrote: »

I'd never pay for a Lamborghini (see sig). Do you see where this is going?

Not really. Please, do tell.

I cant believe someone needed this explained.

Wazilla would never pay the purchase price of a Lamborghini, in fact, chances are good that Wazilla would never pay the list price or any amount of money for a Lamborghini outside of a retardedly low sum that is not at all commesurate with market value (or if Wazilla was to suddenly have enough money that a Lamborghini became an easily affordable luxury item).

If Wazilla found a way to recieve or own a Lamborghini without purchasing it, this does not constitute a lost sale for Lamborghini or any dealership that deals in Lamborghini's, or any other Lamborghini seller.

The RIAA is claiming that every downloaded song is a lost sale. Ignoring the fact that the vast majority of downloads are not from potential customers. If you removed all avenues of "piracy" and gave a "pirate" the option of purchasing a song or not having it, the majority would just not purchase it and go without.

I put piracy and pirate in quotations because it really doesnt accurately describe the crime that is being committed, but it is the term that has been adopted for copyright infringement.

See, that whole deal doesn't obviously follow from what he said, it wasn't as painfully obvious as you seemed to think it should be.

It's fairly obvious. Not every stolen item is a lost sale. It's the same in any industry.

Well, when some people start an argument like that, they follow it up with "So that means I can steal a car right? WRONG! Piracy = theft!!1! olol"

strakha_7

zeeny wrote: »

Give us 50 million per month, and we won't..like...well, you know.....do stuff about people who would never have resulted in a revenue for us anyway and we can not penalize with the current legislation?

Are they on crack?

Edit: Also, that's a disgusting article, misrepresenting a problem and pushing elephant lies while using a language that is supposed to persuade you how good the idea is. It reads like a paid advertisement.

That's pretty much par for the course with TorStar articles, but especially the Toronto Star.

And as has already been covered near the start of the thread, it's already 100% legal to share music in Canada thanks to the surcharge you pay on CDs, iPods, Shuffles, USB sticks, etc.