Wow, this comes across more like a publicity stunt than a legal judgement. You could probably rob a whole cd store and not be found liable for that much.

 

Wow, this comes across more like a publicity stunt than a legal judgement. You could probably rob a whole cd store and not be found liable for that much.

Actually, I would view judgements like this to be an encouragement to rob the CD shop instead as the penalty is far lighter.

Of course there is SUPPOSED to be the concept that penalty match crime. Here at least I think you can find judges that would not allow such a penalty to be awarded. Especially when had she robbed a store she could simply have been ordered to pay damages and the costs of the items stolen.

See, this is why I am happy to pay the tax on blank media. I remember those newspaper headlines. When the record industry tried to sue here, they were told to leave; the money from that tax paid artists more than what they were being paid by their record companies.

 

While this case in particular is extreme and the ruling is outrageous, I don't have a whole lot of pity for people who illegally download music. My wife and I buy CDs and we rent movies from the video store or view a select few in theatres. We've made a conscious decision to support these industries. If I had a magic wand, I'd make vinyl records and reel-to-reel tape the only availlable music mediums. It's sad that so many folks think music is free.

Shawn

 

While this case in particular is extreme and the ruling is outrageous, I don't have a whole lot of pity for people who illegally download music. My wife and I buy CDs and we rent movies from the video store or view a select few in theatres. We've made a conscious decision to support these industries. If I had a magic wand, I'd make vinyl records and reel-to-reel tape the only availlable music mediums. It's sad that so many folks think music is free.

Shawn

Well I'd bet most teenagers these days have never bought a cd and likely never held a record in their hands. They think music is free.

 

I forget what band it was, but there was a pretty big group (Green day, maybe?) who was at an autograph session - there were loads of kids that brought home-burned CDs for the band to sign. just no awareness at all.


/ shuffles feet and mutters about kids these days.

 

$80,000 per song? She was just downloading for personal use! It's not like she had a pirate factory going on in her basement and was burning copies to sell on the street!

Organizations like RIAA and MMPA like to compare downloading to shoplifting but obviously the two are not even close to the same thing in the eyes of the courts. I used to work in retail and shoplifters basically got an arrest and maybe a fine. Sometimes the security staff wouldn't even bother the police and would just take the offender's photo and "ban" them from setting foot in the store again.

Totally, this makes shoplifting seem like a good idea.

Obviously, the RIAA can never expect to actually collect $1.9 million from this woman. This is a stunt to make an example out of someone.

 

Music is not free, downloading is illegal. I support the artists I like, and do buy the physical CD's and DVD's at the store. I don't she should have been fined like this, and yes it is just a publicity stunt. Many think sharing and downloading is music for free.

Truth is the recorded music had to be paid by someone? it was not recorded for free, the Band/artist and or record company.

My rant

Cherrs!
http://krulemusicgroup.blogspot.com

 

Music is not free, downloading is illegal. I support the artists I like, and do buy the physical CD's and DVD's at the store. I don't she should have been fined like this, and yes it is just a publicity stunt. Many think sharing and downloading is music for free.

Truth is the recorded music had to be paid by someone? it was not recorded for free, the Band/artist and or record company.

My rant

Cherrs!
http://krulemusicgroup.blogspot.com

http://www.webopedia.com/DidYouKnow/Internet/2004/music_downloading.asp

Read paragraph 2

As I said before, in Canada, musicians are tax compensated.

Actually, there are a lot of very big named bands that openly support and endorse and actively participate in downloading of their music. Some, especially in the USA, get sued for it, and even by their own labels. In the USA you don't have the right to perform your music if you are contracted with a distributor of your music unless that distributor says you can is I think the logic there @_@ insane as that sounds.

Once upon a time a band made money on the vinyl and lost it on the live shows but had to do the live events to get people to buy their records. That is no longer the case. At least, if bands are not making money at 100 dollars a ticket in the nosebleeds they sure need a more honest manager.

Times change, how people share change. Musicians need to change with the times or get out of the game. So, someone downloads it. What they are not doing, really, is subjecting themselves to the random nature of broadcast radio and the commercial breaks to slam on the record button of their tape decks or simply giving the 99 cent cd's a pass at road side yard sales or from music re-sellers.

As to the musicians listed, I doubt that a single one of those people receives royaltys or other associated moneys from their works. It is more common to be paid outright a single fee for your work and thats it, from there on it is all the label that gets it, not the artist. I think it was Justin Timberlake that spoke about that not too long ago actually. Meh, could be wrong on the 'who' but it has been in the public media in the last couple years. I know from following other independent bands and their blogs that getting a label to sign them has become hard to impossible. Getting a label to not offer a 'one time deal' when one does offer to take an interest is harder still. So really, who does downloading really hurt? Yard sales, and used car salesmen pitching on the radio are the ones that get it first because that is where I used to go for my music first in the days before mp3's.

I do purchase music. Unsigned or independents only. And only those that sell to/in Canada. LOTS of the third world music I love is ONLY available as mp3 downloads. And it is even harder if I want live video of non North American musicians or performances. The only way around region coded dvd's is downloading ripped ones. Ripped because even IF by some miracle you manage to purchase it (since cross region shopping is blocked BY the industry in general) it still will not usually play on your machine (YAY for being forced to set up your machine and having the one time chance of declairing a region code that you are then locked to).

:rockon2: I like music, I like musicians, I hate the money grubbers that take moms to court for having recorded online rather than onradio some cheese songs that going to be forgotten in another 5 years anywas.

 

Now that it's clear that peer-to-peer music sharing is legal in this country, who wants to tell a neo-Luddite the name of some peer-to-peer sites?

FWIW I feel very sorry for this woman, she was handed a fine that far exceeds the "crime" that she committed. Also, I do still buy cd's - mainly because I like the case candy and I want to support the artist. I also can't play MP3s on my stereo -cd player is too old. I'll probably never spring for a 100 dollar nose bleed seat to a concert, so this is how I can do it.

Also, BTW, Phish is issuing free downloads of its concerts and Robert Earl Keen has a free album available too.

 

:wave: I remember the headlines when riaa tried to take copyright claims to court here. I remember that the judge noted in his ruling that they had no foundation for their claims of damages in Canada due the tax on media, but further to that, since the money went direct to the artists that the musicians were getting more money from the tax than from their normal cut.

P2P is ubiquitous on the web and google searchable in 0.01 seconds or so

As to sale sites:

http://cdbaby.com/ great purchasing sight for music, with very reasonable costs and lifetime redownloadablity.

http://mp3.mondomix.com/ I don't know these guys well enough yet, but they bought out a really great company and they apparently are still doing the free tracks weekly too so...

There are others of course, and it may be a good thing for this forum to have a sticky of "where to buy/sell" music with a list of these types of sites. Everyone here that does sell music I think would appreciate that and benefit by it.

I agree, I like the art and the pamphlets and the nice painted CD too. Some of the independent artists I have bought from have been download only (as from cdbaby), some have been a bare cd in a white paper sleeve with the name hand written on it, some have done the full art package and case. It really is a fun way to purchase music. I have also bought some First Nations Flute independently produced music off eBay, and at events like this weekends "sound of music" here in Burlington, from street singing musicians. And even though a few (three I think) of the musicians music I have purchased have all the same song already on youtube for free, I really like the good clean quality recordings from them directly.

To throw another bone on the contention pile. Survivorship and selling of rights are two things that I feel SHOULD be made illegal. You die, your music/art/writings should clear your estate in as timely a manner as any thing else in your estate. 50 or 70 years survivorship is just none sense. Just more money grubbing second cousins you never talked to while you lived trying to make a dime off your work. And the very idea that you can SELL your rights or have your right SOLD to me is abhorrent. The idea that many songs can be held hostage forever because they are "owned" by a companey (that of course never dies and so that 50 or 70 years never comes to pass) does no one in society any good.

 

FYI, we Canadians need to pay attention to who we vote for if we want to keep our digital rights. The RIAA and MMPA have been lobbying Ottawa very heavily in the past few years to overhaul Canadian copyright law to bring it more in line with the USA model on digital media. This way they could start hauling us into court in just the same manner.

When Jim Prentice was Industry Minister last fall, he had a bill on the floor (I think it was C-60) to do just this. Luckily we had an election happen in the fall so the bill died on the floor. I'm not sure if its been reintroduced, but make no mistake that the Conservatives are pro-industry on this issue and if given enough time they will criminalize peer-to-peer in this country.

 

Now that it's clear that peer-to-peer music sharing is legal in this country, who wants to tell a neo-Luddite the name of some peer-to-peer sites?

From what I recall, downloading is legal.
Uploading (sharing) is not. So be careful
if any of you think of goin' the peer to peer
route. But if you must..get some tracker
blocking software as well (free downloads).

 

From what I recall, downloading is legal.
Uploading (sharing) is not. So be careful
if any of you think of goin' the peer to peer
route. But if you must..get some tracker
blocking software as well (free downloads).

It isn't quite that simple. Michael Geist puts to rest some myths about file sharing in Canada: http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/4038/159/ -- that's a good read (as are most things Geist writes).

 

It isn't quite that simple. Michael Geist puts to rest some myths about file sharing in Canada: http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/4038/159/ -- that's a good read (as are most things Geist writes).

Interesting read. I think it still supports that downloading music is legal (or at least not specifically illegal) and does in its way suggest there is ample funds recovered from the taxes.

Really, I feel that it is a brave new world, and if you are going to have such men in it the onus becomes yours in how you mix in with them and not the other way around. No matter what the "industry" will cook up, there will be French courts that say Non Non! and pimply kids with black magic markers that will fix those red wagons.

:shrug: there was a time covered waggon stock traded for lots of money, till the car came along ...

 

"The reality is that Canadian law features a private copying exemption that includes a levy on blank media. The Federal Court and the Copyright Board of Canada have intimated that the levy, which has generated hundreds of millions of dollars, could apply to personal, non-commercial downloading of sound recordings onto certain blank media. The law therefore opens the door to some legalized music downloading, but it does not cover other content (ie. movies or software) or the uploading of any content."

Sounds to me like it's OK to copy the music you already bought legally onto various media (i.e. copy a cd or convert into mp3) but not legal to download unless you're paying for it. This makes good sense to me. If I ever release an album I will do it privately and online. I would hope that someone who buys it does not then copy it, upload it to the net and let it be distributed for free. Music is intellectual property and also a musicians product. It should be treated that way.


Realistically though, I can't hear the type of music I want to hear on the radio or on tv. Downloading out of curiosity seems almost fair but I know it isn't. Of course, you can always listen to music online without downloading it. Songza.com works great and there's always myspace pages.

Matt

 

WOw...that's just insane. 80 000$,..again, wow.

One of the problem i see in my inner circle is kids related for downloading music and movies, or even TV shows. my sister's kid, now 20, came at my place last week with his new labtop wich as a 1 terrabyte HD, for those not Computer savy, that's 1000 gig HD. His labtop is basicaly his Home Theater system, and Sound system. For him, the notion of paying 15$ for a Music CD is illogical, and the same goes for movies and TV shows. in terrabyte HD i FULL..and i mean FULL to a point he as a portable HD now to more download. He has on his HD almost every Sci fi show you can think of, stuff like CSI etc etc. 275 gig worth of music, that's just insane, and more movies then i could count.

I was trying to explain the arm he was doing to the industry, but like he said, he's in college in montreal, and his reply was...NO ONE buys cds or pays for movies Uncle...that's just crazy.

I personnaly have about 100 gig of MP3 myself on my Computer at home...but if you turn around, i have a large shelve system with ALL he original CDs. i use Itune for music when i work, it's a lot better then changing CDs every hrs. a Friend gave me last week, the new Chikenfoot CD in mp3...i loved it..and bought the CD...there's something about having the real thing...what can i say

 

Ah indeed the physical product in hand. But what do you do with that? Online streaming travels with you and 300 gigs of song on a 5 pound lap top is a LOT easier to put in your plane baggage than the original CD's

This is partly why I do like cdbaby. Not only is there no drm crap to mess up your enjoyment of the songs, once bought there is no time or count limits on downloading the bought songs. Your drive fails, just redownload. Your in another country for the summer and have a loner comp, just redownload. etc etc.

Air is free and so should be what resides in it. Life did not become improved when the TV industry got a judge to think otherwise, it simply got more expensive to live it. That and, we went from 36 episodes a season for TV entertainment and currently sit at an average of 10 or so and the costs of advertising and production are stupidly astronomical compared to the much freer 1960's and '70's

And as much as the parental over 30 group or the grand parental over 50 may feel one way or another, it IS the 'under 24' group that is shaping the future. What was the expression? Get hip to it daddyo sdsre


/me sorry if that last line was agrejious I couldn't help myself ;p

 

this guy has a pretty good perspective, i think
http://www.demonbaby.com/blog/2007/10/when-pigs-fly-death-of-oink-birth-of.html

 

this guy has a pretty good perspective, i think
http://www.demonbaby.com/blog/2007/10/when-pigs-fly-death-of-oink-birth-of.html

:bow: amazing how much that article articulated so much of what I HAVE been saying for the past 10 years! A very 'all round' enjoyable read and I do thank you much!

 

glad you enjoyed it. kinda long read (for some folks) but well worth it, i think.

 

There's something wrong with a country where an average person who downloads a few songs worth $1-2 (at MOST), gets penalized $80,000.
But when a superstar worth about a half BILLION dollars (Mel Gibson) gets caught speeding while drunk driving (thereby endangering public safety), he gets fined $1300.9kkhhd
Where are the priorities, and who's running the show really?

God bless america.:smilie_flagge17:

 

this guy has a pretty good perspective, i think
http://www.demonbaby.com/blog/2007/10/when-pigs-fly-death-of-oink-birth-of.html

That was an awesome read! It sums up how I feel very well.

 

So Demonbaby disagees with the way the recored companies handled the football, therefore everything is free. Instead of a small slice of pie an artist get a big slice of nothing. Shiney Happy People will buy your T-shirts and extol your virtues. They'll flock to your gigs(yeah right). I think an artist should be rewarded for their endeavours. With money. What a crock!

 

So Demonbaby disagees with the way the recored companies handled the football, therefore everything is free. Instead of a small slice of pie an artist get a big slice of nothing. Shiney Happy People will buy your T-shirts and extol your virtues. They'll flock to your gigs(yeah right). I think an artist should be rewarded for their endeavours. With money. What a crock!

His point is that the major label artist generally seeing next to nothing on the sale of their music because major label artists do not own their own music. The artists make the majority of their bread off of touring and merch sales because the label does not control that part of the business. Therefore, by supporting the artist directly in that regard you cut out the middleman (the label).

 

No, that is not his point. His point is jusifying getting music and not paying for it.