the RIAA

[brutus543]

what do you think of them.

they started the stop illegal downloads not the song writers

 

[ps139]

I think RIAA sucks. They are a rich, money hungry organization which has lost touch with what music is all about.

Bands should make their money at concerts. CDs should get people to go to shows. If you can't entertain a live crowd, then you're not worth buying a CD of.

 

[nadroj1985]

If you can't entertain a live crowd, then you're not worth buying a CD of.

Why not? Maybe there are some bands that don't do well in a live setting but make great studio albums. They would be worth buying a CD of. Nick Drake is a good example. He was a very introverted guy--hated playing live shows. But his albums are simply beautiful.

 

[ps139]

Why not? Maybe there are some bands that don't do well in a live setting but make great studio albums. They would be worth buying a CD of. Nick Drake is a good example. He was a very introverted guy--hated playing live shows. But his albums are simply beautiful.

Good point. I was in an angry mood when I wrote that and went a little overboard.

I do not know what to do about a guy like Nick Drake.

I still believe that a band should make most of its money at shows - and the CD is to get the people there.

However, when I download a lot of someone's songs, I do go buy the CD, out of respect for the artist. If everyone would do that then the RIAA could not complain.

I just think the RIAA takes it way too far.

 

[Breetai]

In Canada we are allowed to share. It's a nice concept; sharing.

 

[Marissa]

^In this case also known as stealing.


I have no problem with folks who download a song here and there to see if they like the song/artist. I think share programs are great for this. If anything it only increases CD sales. I do this myself on occasion. I have no intention of spending $20 on an artist that has been recommended to me if I don't know I'll like them. I have spent $20 on a recommended artist after downloading a song or two and discovering they are that good.

People who get all their music from p2p networks however I do have a problem with. They can dodge the issue all they want but IMHO it is stealing, and that's wrong. I've heard the claim that "CD's are a too expensive" too many times. I don't understand why that justifies stealing. If something is too expensive then you simply do without. If enough people agree, the price will come down.

The RIAA probably needs to be more careful about who it sues (a 12 year old downloading the Brady bunch isn't real good for PR), but for the most part I'm not concerned. It can't touch me.

 

[ps139]

People who get all their music from p2p networks however I do have a problem with. They can dodge the issue all they want but IMHO it is stealing, and that's wrong. I've heard the claim that "CD's are a too expensive" too many times. I don't understand why that justifies stealing. If something is too expensive then you simply do without. If enough people agree, the price will come down.

Marissa, what do you think of bands that encourage this? There are plenty of bands I know who love this - its free publicity - and they also allow tapers to set up at their shows, record tapes and CDs, and give them out or trade them in the parking lot after the show. Its the best way to build a dedicated fan base. That is how some of these bands got started - giving away free music because they know that many people aren't going to risk $20 on a CD purchase just because some guy they know says the band is good.

The RIAA probably needs to be more careful about who it sues (a 12 year old downloading the Brady bunch isn't real good for PR), but for the most part I'm not concerned. It can't touch me.

Yeah that is horrible PR. You know what I wish - that the RIAA would at least be honest, and not sue for thousands of dollars per song. Why not take the total cost of the CD, divide that by # of tracks, then calculate the actual value of the song.

 

[Breetai]

There are plenty of bands I know who love this - its free publicity - and they also allow tapers to set up at their shows, record tapes and CDs, and give them out or trade them in the parking lot after the show. Its the best way to build a dedicated fan base.

Bjorn Lynne! Sorry, I just like his stuff. I found it on the 'net and he offers free tracks.

 

[Breetai]

Canada: Downloading music is legal


John Borland
CNET News.com
December 15, 2003, 09:50 GMT



Canadians are legally free to download music from the Internet - but not to upload it, the Copyright Board has found





Downloading copyrighted music from peer-to-peer networks is legal in Canada, although uploading files is not, Canadian copyright regulators said in a ruling released on Friday.


In the same decision, the Copyright Board of Canada imposed a government fee of as much as $19.20 on iPod-like MP3 players, putting the devices in the same category as audio tapes and blank CDs. The money collected from levies on "recording mediums" goes into a fund to pay musicians and songwriters for revenues lost from consumers' personal copying. Manufacturers are responsible for paying the fees and often pass the cost on to consumers.


The peer-to-peer component of the decision was prompted by questions from consumer and entertainment groups about ambiguous elements of Canadian law. Previously, most analysts had said uploading was illegal but that downloading for personal use might be allowed.


"As far as computer hard drives are concerned, we say that for the time being, it is still legal," said Claude Majeau, secretary general of the Copyright Board.


The decision is likely to ruffle feathers on many sides, from consumer-electronics sellers worried about declining sales to international entertainment companies worried about the spread of peer-to-peer networks.


Copyright holder groups such as the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) had already been critical of Canada's copyright laws, in large part because the country has not instituted provisions similar to those found in the US Digital Millennium Copyright Act. One portion of that law makes it illegal to break, or to distribute tools for breaking, digital copy protection mechanisms, such as the technology used to protect DVDs from piracy.


A lawyer for the Canadian record industry's trade association said the group still believed downloading was illegal, despite the decision.


"Our position is that under Canadian law, downloading is also prohibited," said Richard Pfohl, general counsel for the Canadian Recording Industry Association. "This is the opinion of the Copyright Board, but Canadian courts will decide this issue."


In its decision on Friday, the Copyright Board said uploading or distributing copyrighted works online appeared to be prohibited under current Canadian law.


However, the country's copyright law does allow making a copy for personal use and does not address the source of that copy or whether the original has to be an authorised or noninfringing version, the board said.


Under those laws, certain media are designated as appropriate for making personal copies of music, and producers pay a per-unit fee into a pool designed to compensate musicians and songwriters. Most audio tapes and CDs, and now MP3 players, are included in that category. Other mediums, such as DVDs, are not deemed appropriate for personal copying.


Computer hard drives have never been reviewed under that provision, however. In its decision on Friday, the board decided to allow personal copies on a hard drive until a fee ruling is made specifically on that medium or until the courts or legislature tell regulators to rule otherwise.


"Until such time, as a decision is made on hard drives, for the time being, [we are ruling] in favour of consumers," Majeau said.


Legal analysts said that courts would probably rule on the file-swapping issue later, despite Friday's opinion.


"I think it is pretty significant," Michael Geist, a law professor at the University of Ottawa, said. "It's not that the issue is resolved...I think that sooner or later, courts will sound off on the issue. But one thing they will take into consideration is the Copyright Board ruling."


Friday's decision will also impose a substantial surcharge on hard drive-based music players such as Apple Computer's iPod or the new Samsung Napster player for the first time. MP3 players with up to 10GB of memory will have an added levy of $11.50 added to their price, while larger players will see $19.20 added on top of the wholesale price.


MP3 players with less than 1GB of memory will have only a $1.50 surcharge added to their cost.


With a population of about 31 million people, Canada is approximately one-tenth the size of the United States. But Canadians are relatively heavy users of high-speed Internet connections, which make it easy to download music files. About 4.1 million Canadians were using a broadband connection at home as of the end of June 2003, according to UK-based research firm Point Topic. By comparison, US cable and DSL (digital subscriber line) subscribers totalled 22.7 million at the end of September, according to Leichtman Research Group.


Canada has already raised the hackles of some copyright holders through its reluctance to enact measures that significantly expand digital copyright protection, as the controversial Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) has done in the United States. As a result, Canada could become a model for countries seeking to find a balance between protecting copyright holders' rights and providing consumers with more liberal rights to copyrighted works. For now, it remains unclear how other countries might be influenced by Friday's ruling.


Geist said he believes the tariff decision could be just the tip of the iceberg for hardware makers, as Canadian regulators grapple with the full implications of the policy. Other devices, including PCs, may eventually be brought under the tariff scheme, he predicted.


"Given that they've made a strong stand on [peer-to-peer matters], if the policy remains the same, there's little choice but to move ahead on personal computers," Geist said.


However, a representative of the Canadian Private Copying Collective (CPCC), the group of music copyright holders that typically petitions for new media types to be added to the list, said computers were not on its agenda.


"We have never sought a levy on computer hard drives and do not intend to do so in the future," Lucie Beaucheni, vice chair of the CPCC, said.

http://news.zdnet.co.uk/business/legal/0,39020651,39118537,00.htm

I own over 400 CDs by the way. That doesn't include burned discs.

 

[Marissa]

Marissa, what do you think of bands that encourage this? There are plenty of bands I know who love this - its free publicity - and they also allow tapers to set up at their shows, record tapes and CDs, and give them out or trade them in the parking lot after the show. Its the best way to build a dedicated fan base. That is how some of these bands got started - giving away free music because they know that many people aren't going to risk $20 on a CD purchase just because some guy they know says the band is good.

I really don't know.

If a band has a contract with a recording company which includes the sole right to sell/distribute their music do they have the right to encourage their fans to ignore the law?

That's a sticky question and ultimately I'd lean towards no. They gave up that right when they signed the contract. In the instance of bands still establishing their fan base it's in the interest of the record company to allow this to happen, but that decision has to include them.

The sticky part is that they're not "selling" their music, but rather encouraging others not to buy it. It doesn't go against their contract, but it is dishonest. It goes against the intent, if not the letter of the agreement.

 

[Axver]

Personally, I download - or would if WinMX would kindly connect - and I really don't see anything wrong with it. Harp on to me about it being illegal all you want, but the fact of the matter is that I just don't care. I'm sick of getting ripped off by music stores charging way too much, and if I really want something, I will buy it. But as people have said, I'm not going to buy a CD just because someone else reckons it's good. And some stuff, while I like listening to it, I'm not prepared to buy (or don't have the money to buy). Not to mention the fact some stuff's hard to get.

 

[-=Burnt Toast=-]

I have bought all 8 of my TISM cds, because they are great and i like alll the songs. But ill be buggered if im going to pay $30 for 2 good and 15 trash songs.

 

[Marissa]

^You could always try shopping somewhere than HMV. They're not the only music store in the country. I won't pay $30 for 15 good songs.

 

[HoT-MetaL]

Im with Marissa on this one. I think its fine to try before you buy, but to download whole albums and stuff is stealing. Can you say that listening to songs over the radio is stealing? Is listening to the sample music in shops stealing?

 

[blackwasp]

I have to agree with ps139 and Axver, here. If a band is really about the music, they won't mind people downloading their music. How much has this really hurt the industry? Think of bands that have gone quadruple platinum, and they are charging $20 for a cd. That is a pretty penny. Although a live act may not define a band, if a band wants to pay the bills, they should be on the road. Also, if you really enjoy a band, you will buy their cd. If artists started writing albums again rather than hit singles accompanied by a dozen filler songs, sales would go up.

 

[Axver]

I have to agree with ... Axver, here.

Woah, when was the last time we agreed? Heh.

How much has this really hurt the industry?

I believe the figures are grossly overstated. Personally, I feel that if downloading should be illegal, so should the radio. You get songs for free off the radio, and you can even record them so that you can play whatever you want. With downloading, you're basically just creating your own radio station that plays only what you like.

Although a live act may not define a band, if a band wants to pay the bills, they should be on the road. Also, if you really enjoy a band, you will buy their cd. If artists started writing albums again rather than hit singles accompanied by a dozen filler songs, sales would go up.

Completely agree. A band needs to be able to do it live, I have little to no respect for a band that stinks live, can't pull the crowds, needs to rely on hit singles to make money, et cetera. I admire bands I've heard of that have made extremely well-selling CDs and didn't release any singles at all. That's what I call a good band. If a band is that good, they're going to get the massive sales whether there's downloading or not.

Basically, nothing can be done to stop downloading. If there's enough, people will always get what they want, and there's definitely enough people who want to download their music. It's the new radio, really.