Federal Court of Canada Justice Konrad von Finckenstien's March 31 ruling on downloading music from the internet was seen as a major setback by the music industry and a victory by internet service providers.

The Canadian Recording Industry Association wanted a court order to identify 29 uploaders that CRIA claims illegally posted hundreds of songs on the internet. Finckenstein refused and without the names, CRIA cannot take legal action for damages.

"No evidence was presented that the alleged infringers either distributed or authorized the reproduction of sound recordings," von Finckenstein wrote in his 28-page ruling. "They merely placed personal copies into their shared directories which were accessible by other computer users via a P2P service."

The ruling stipulates that:
-Downloading a song for personal use is not an infringement.
-Placing a song in an on-line music-sharing directory such as Kazaa is not considered distribution.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/internet/downloading_music.html



It seems that in Canada it is safe to Download now, also Havard has come out with a study showing that P2P does not severly affect CD sales:

http://www.unc.edu/~cigar/papers/FileSharing_March2004.pdf

Downloads have an effect on sales which is statistically
indistinguishable from zero, despite rather precise estimates. Moreover, these estimates
are of moderate economic significance and are inconsistent with claims that file sharing
is the primary reason for the recent decline in music sales.

Do enjoy... ;)

I think this decision, if upheld in appeals court, clearly shows that the rightful owner of any trademark material is that of the owner itself whom is allowed to do with it what they want. I mean, how often does something have to be paid for before it is finally purchased? My thought is, if it's paid for once it is purchased i.e. if someone buys a CD and makes it available on a P2P network, so be it - it is theirs to do with it what they want... (I really hope this makes sense to y'all)

Do you mean, that if I buy a Beatles song, I OWN a Beatles song, and can then go around selling Beatles CDs as I please because I put down my 20 bucks? That sounds like a great idea, except that no musician could ever make money again. They release an album, and if they are good, get to sell it for maybe a day, before pirates undercut them and there is no money to be made on their album anymore. Do you think most bands you listen to would be so good if they had to get strait jobs too?

I mean, how often does something have to be paid for before it is finally purchased?

Puchasing and copyright infringements are two different things.

My thought is, if it's paid for once it is purchased i.e. if someone buys a CD and makes it available on a P2P network, so be it - it is theirs to do with it what they want... (I really hope this makes sense to y'all)

The plastic is theirs to do what they want, not the content that is held within that plastic. The consumer did not compose the music, write the lyrics ,engeniered the sound or spent money on selling and marketing the product...the consumer simply paid for the right to hear the product in his/her privacy, not to give away free public access to it.

Simply plopping down the cash does not an owner make. You do not own the music, you pay for the services.

Spy...

I dare you to ask artists what they think of music downloading. They'll give you a resounding, 'it's good for business' response. You know why? B/C the only people who stand to gain from 'copyright' laws are corporations who have nothing to do with the creativity or originality of the songs they so vehemently defend. A band makes the majority of their cash from t-shirt sales, ticket sales etc from touring. For every 20 dollar CD sold artists collect less than 30 cents... Do you really think the artists of original music have a stake in the fight over P2P music sharing? Yes they do! And they prey it continues, it's good for business,

Fireguy 31

Guess who really gets screwed from downloading without paying? Not the corporations or the CEOs..nope, their pay is steady and only rises over time. Not the artists neccessairly either. The ones who get screwed are the middlemen...the guys who work between the crack to get the product out there. The lab boys, the technicians, the little people with kids who make 30,000-60,000 a year in the music industry.

Artists make up with concert and merchandise sales and royalties. The corporations make up on everything else. The little guys get screwed. Though eventually it has been shown that downloading hasn't put a serious dent in the music buisness earnings...it is just fat cats protecting their meat but that still does make you an owner of anything.

I trust the music industry to know when its hemorrhaging money, if file sharing were good for their bottom lines then they wouldn’t be so adamant about stopping file sharing. Your assertion that giving away music for free makes more money than selling it is baseless, and I have only heard it from file sharers, not musicians. And my assertion stands that if anyone who bought the CD could copy it and sell it because he owns the CD and anything on it, recording artists would no longer be able to make money.

[I]"No evidence was presented that the alleged infringers either distributed or authorized the reproduction of sound recordings," von Finckenstein wrote in his 28-page ruling. "They merely placed personal copies into their shared directories which were accessible by other computer users via a P2P service."This is just absurd. Putting music in a P2P download folder is clearly tacit authorization for copying. It is difficult to imagine any reason for placing music in a P2P download folder other than allowing others to download it. Hence the term 'download folder'.

sarge...
Puchasing and copyright infringements are two different things.

Yes, I know that. And the court ruled that uploading music is not an infringement of copyright laws.

Your other argument, "who really gets screwed..." is right on the money, and I agree. But I do not agree that my conscience should be burdened by anothers financial troubles if my actions are not deemed illegal. As a matter of fact, recording companies have attempted to get fees levied for each song downloaded, with some success. This will inevitably leave the 'ma and pop' music store bankrupt. Thats the nature of an evolving market to e-business.

spy...
Do you mean, that if I buy a Beatles song, I OWN a Beatles song, and can then go around selling Beatles CDs as I please because I put down my 20 bucks?
No, that's not what I was implying and you know that (it appears my original post did not make sense afterall - I'll own that responsibility). If I make my files accessible to others over a 'free' software program, at no charge and not for personal gain then, as the court ALREADY ruled, I am not infringing on copyright laws.

Your assertion that giving away music for free makes more money than selling it is baseless, and I have only heard it from file sharers, not musicians.

Thats not what I said and you know that. The majority of recording artists will tell you that they generate the majority of their revenues from touring and the spin-offs. I have had recording artists tell me that since the insurgence of widespread file sharing via p2p software their fan base has increased. A fan base is a client base, no?

Some artists, Don Koe Jones (sp?), have echoed this publicly adding that most artists wouldn't dare spek up in agreement fearing repercussions from their labels. What's important to artists is getting their music to the masses - p2p sharing is doing that, no? Musicians will survive, however corporations may not and my conscience will not be burdened by that in the least.

And yes, I am a file sharer. And I am sick and tired of purchasing CDs that, outside of one or two songs, suck! If it weren't for great engineering techniques employed by recording engineers at major record labels half the 'mainstream' shit you hear would be just that, shit! For me file sharing is about the artists, their music and accessing it, and as long as the courts deem file sharing legal here in Canada I will continue to do so without any ethical dilemmas.

EDIT: My argument is not a legal one nor do I think file sharing has no detrimental effect on the bottom line. My argument is that the industry 'may' stand to lose a bundle from file sharing not the artists themselves.

lol, most people here that buy cds, take a moral highground
downloading may support piracy, but thats mostly just teenagers with little money
buying second hand cds supports burglary.
i have had my house burgled, they took all the cds in the house (as well as less easily replaced stuff), stop supporting buglaries you people

Bottom line.

The music industry has lost control of the means of distribution. That belongs to us now. They will adapt or die. Either way I get my tunes.

As for copyright. It was a strange Idea to start with. I'm whistling a Beatles tune in a public place. Now other people are whistling it too. Looks like I've just distributed copyrighted material across a network and into other wetware download folders. How much do I owe Sir Paul?

Dee Cee

lol, most people here that buy cds, take a moral highground
downloading may support piracy, but thats mostly just teenagers with little money
buying second hand cds supports burglary.
i have had my house burgled, they took all the cds in the house (as well as less easily replaced stuff), stop supporting buglaries you people

Well the difference is that the teen is once removed from the crime and certainly hasn't got any idea where the CD came from. However when we download music of songs who's album we don't already own a copy of then we are directly pirating, not just "supporting" piracy, we are the pirates ourselves.

Bottom line.

The music industry has lost control of the means of distribution. That belongs to us now. They will adapt or die. Either way I get my tunes.

As for copyright. It was a strange Idea to start with. I'm whistling a Beatles tune in a public place. Now other people are whistling it too. Looks like I've just distributed copyrighted material across a network and into other wetware download folders. How much do I owe Sir Paul?

Dee Cee

You've got a strange idea about copy right laws. You're entirely able to whistle or hum a song in public :p

You're right that they've lost the means of distribution, which is quite unfortunate as they are really the only ones who should have any right to distribute the music (them and the artists that made it).

Imagine you've written a book, the great American novel, now you want to recoup the losses you've taken of having spent a year not working to write the damned thing. You find a company to publish it, but as soon as they roll out the first copy every other publisher in the country starts rolling out copies of your book too. The thing is, though, that you don't have deals with those publishers, so they aren't paying you a dime for your hard work, and guess what, because there are no copy right laws, your publisher decides that they'll just break the deal and not pay you, after all you've got no claim at all to the book you've written, and now that they've got a copy they don't need to keep you happy any more!

Without copyright we're nothing but a gang of thieves, and artists are going to be quite a bit more hesitant to keep making and sharing their art with us if they know that they'll just get screwed right up the ass as soon as they try to make a living of it (or at least some side cash). Let's face it, producing art is fun, but it's a lot more fun when you can both dedicate your time to it and still be able to eat.

From his hand to paper, or instrument, or canvas, at what point does the fruit of an artist’s mind and labor become your inherent right to own? Show some God damned respect and buy it through the channels that the artist has established, it’s his right as the creator of the work you love so well.

didn't read the whole thread... so just going to put in my 2 cents:

i'm happy i can now download music without any fear of punishment (not that i've been scared or anything... been downloading mp3's since 1997 with my 33.6K modem)

but while i was considering becoming a musician 2 years ago, now, that the mp3 revolution has "liberated" music to be "shared", there is no way i'm going to invest in a musical career
and i'm not the only one. many many people, much more talanted than me, are going to become something other than musicians... quality of music will shrink until all music sounds like Paul Oakenfold with nice 3.5 minutes radio format and all the formulaic elements of pop garbage

oh yeah... and you'll be seeing more Hillary Duff and mediocre boxing has-beens (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/B00004YWWR/103-7141469-6508637?v=glance) albums

it's sad really

Otheadp whilst your theory is close to the truth(except only people that like paul oakenfold will buy it and therefore if it dont sell his careers over), most people download music from new bands to get an idea of what their albums like, singles are too expensive to buy for a couple songs, albums are cheaper, but if you only like one song on the album its still a waste, i brought the corals album, and it was crap, worst album i've ever brought, i liked one song, now i always download a few songs before i get an album so i know i'll like it. Single sales are down because of the price(and this went up before downloads started), albums are down because most are just plain shit, only albums i buy without downloads are from bands i know i like all their stuff, which is about 3 bands, most new bands have 1 or 2 good songs, hardly ever an albums worth.

otheadp
but while i was considering becoming a musician 2 years ago, now, that the mp3 revolution has "liberated" music to be "shared", there is no way i'm going to invest in a musical career

Well, it appears the P2P wave has created yet another benefit for musicians and music lovers - it keeps the artists(and i use that term loosely in this context)seeking 'commercial' success away from the business.. haha :D

What part of "Unauthorized duplication is a violation of applicaple laws" don't you understand? I have no "moral high ground" to stand on myself. I'm a (mp3) thief plain and simple. I know what I'm doing and am honest with myself and so others. But the implication that one is not stealing if they suspect the product to be over-priced shit is silly. If it held any merit, Wal-Mart would be cleaned out daily. It seems to me, those who illegally dl copyrighted material are in denial. I have a friend in a celtic band that is putting out their second album and he used to have strong convictions over copyright laws. Now he illegally copies CD's for frends. Not his own of course. But I know he'll get super defensive if I bring this up with him so I observe. At any rate, I've heard nothing but senseless arguments in defense of a practice I engage in, even pointing to the "true victims" of the recording industry then implying it serves the industry right... Just shut up and keep on sharing. And fireguy, that was a cheap shot. What do you work for? The good of society as a whole? Just a few pennies a day to keep you alive? What a heart! Rock on you quinessenssial humanitarian!

Well, it appears the P2P wave has created yet another benefit for musicians and music lovers - it keeps the artists(and i use that term loosely in this context)seeking 'commercial' success away from the business.. haha :D

So this is what its about? You disslike musicians and think they should starve? Or do you think they should make the music you love AND work a steady job as well?

jinchilla
And fireguy, that was a cheap shot. What do you work for? The good of society as a whole? Just a few pennies a day to keep you alive? What a heart! Rock on you quinessenssial humanitarian![sic]

Judging by the number of posts you are quite new here and unfamiliar with other opinions I've posted. FYI - yes I am a socialist, without question. If you'd like to debate stick to the topic and leave my convictions out of it.

SpyMoose
No, I don't think 'artists' should starve *check that* I don't think anyone should starve.

My point was; an 'artist' driven by the prospect of fame and fortune, in any endeavor as far as I'm concerned, will produce haphazard results. With respect to the recording industry, people such as this are the ones who produce shiite music engineered to sound good, marketed to seem good and sold to the market by the industry at a price which reflects those non-artistic efforts. So, if P2P sharing scares off those 'artists' motivated by the prospect of fame and fortune, good riddance.

I'm so sick of seeing people try to justify illegally downloading music by saying things like "all the new albums are crap, I just want to try it before I purchase" or "downloading music help support new bands." Even if all that were true – and it's highly debatable – that still doesn’t give you the right to download music illegally. If you think that new albums are crap, then don't buy them. You don't have a right to steal something simply because you believe it to be of low quality. Of course it's convenient for you to try an album before you buy it. Unfortunately you don't have the right to break the law just because it's convenient.

In our society the person who makes a creative work – book, song, movie, whatever – has the exclusive right to dictate how and when his work is publicly performed or copied. You don't get to violate other people's rights just because you don't like their work, or because you think it helps your garage-band buddies. If an artist thinks that allowing downloading will help his work, then he has the right to authorize it. You, on the other hand, don't have the right to violate copyright law simply because you think that it helps him.

fireguy, I thought personal convictions are what prompt debate and are at the root of our posts. My mistake...?

As for chasing away the producers of crap, that is supposed to be the strangth of the consumer (in a capitalist economy). It is the consumer's choice as to where and when to spend one's money on what.

And as for my rights, I don't particularly like a government getting overly involved in the distribution of the fruits of my labor. Are you supporting an argument for the theft of copyrighted material?

fireguy - "I think this decision, if upheld in appeals court, clearly shows that the rightful owner of any trademark material is that of the owner itself whom is allowed to do with it what they want."

How about selling said material with the attached statement, "ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. UNAUTHORIZED DUPLICATION IS A VIOLATION OF APPLICAPLE LAWS"? Sale implies agreement. Sort of like clicking the "I Agree" radio button upon installation of software.

An interesting (to me) side note to this issue: The IRAA's propaganda versus downloading has worked so well on the masses that don't understand the isssue that some believe downloading ANYTHING is illegal. This is supposed to be a hurdle Wal-Mart now faces in starting it's online music download service.

Nasor
I'm so sick of seeing people try to justify illegally downloading music
Read the very first post in this thread and you'll see I'm doing nothing of the sort but rather arguing the benefits of 'legally' downloading. Unlike our friendly neighbors to the south, our courts have ruled differently.

jinchilla
I did not authorize your duplication via quotation of something I wrote.... Haha, just kidding. ;)

Okay, I admit my statement does imply or better yet support theft of copyrighted material, and that wasn't necessarilly what I was arguing - once again, my appologies.

This discussion is becoming interesting.. I mean, a Canadian Court has ruled that, necessarily, downloading IS NOT copyright infringement yet, people here vehemently argue to the contrary. I wonder what their interests are for doing so?

As I've already stated: Downloading music via P2P is good for artists - i admit not all artists(nothings perfect)but it is good; I couldn't care less about the financial hit large corporations have taken since the insurgence of P2P sharing(no ones starving here people); e-commerce will change the way people do business, it is up to them(corporations)to keep up or fall to the wayside - again, I couldn't care less about who falls to the wayside; one last time - file sharing in Canada is not necessarily illegal.

Can I just say, the word stealing is not appropriate for downloading music, sweeties. Stealing is taking something which belongs to someone else, without their consent, and depriving them of it. This is *copying* something that belongs to someone else, with their consent, and they keep it. My case in point: I'm a teenager. I scrounge money for the movies or to go out with friends. I can very rarely buy CDs, much less albums. It's the same for most people I know. So when I copy music, who exactly is hurting?
Also, there's a bit of a debate about how much record companies are really suffering, and how much of it is due to downloading.
Lastly, jinchilla, that's kind of ridiculous. At least in Canada, there's no law behind the statement. 'Implies agreement' my ass. You could say 'please do not deface or damage this CD' and it would also be reasonable, but the CD buyer won't feel any obligation not to do whatever they want to with the CD.

Right on lizey. Your clarification of 'stealing' is brilliant - especially in this debate.

So when I copy music, who exactly is hurting?

Furthermore, to what extent are people hurting? No ones starving here, hardly!

I agree with lizey, its teenagers mostly that download, and they dont have the money to constantly buy crap music in the hope of eventually buying a decent album, a few downloads later they know whats good and worth getting, nobody says it aint copying and illegal but really, who is it hurting? In my opinion its only crap bands that loose out, whereas before you would have had to buy their album to find out its crap(and by then the moneys been made) now you just download some of it, any decent bands will still make money because their albums will sell regardless of downloads.

This discussion is becoming interesting.. I mean, a Canadian Court has ruled that, necessarily, downloading IS NOT copyright infringement yet, people here vehemently argue to the contrary. I wonder what their interests are for doing so? Obviously it would be in my interests if it were legal for me to download copyrighted music, just like it would be in my interests if I could rob banks and shoot people who annoy me. Never the less, I don’t support music downloading because I believe in copyrights.

I'm not arguing that downloading music is illegal in Canada; obviously the courts have determined that it isn't. My point is that it's stupid to not regard it as copyright infringement. If I scanned a book into .pdf format and started emailing it to people, obviously that would be copyright infringement. I don't know why music should be treated any differently.

You have got me fireguy, now trace my IP and file suit. But that's the interesting thing, the judge refused the CRIA a court order to force ISP's to disclose the identities of their subscribers who are allegedly engaged in copyright infringement. His statements beyond that stand in contradiction to international copyright law as agreed to by signees of the Berne Convention. His statements, which are not what are directly being contested, seem to be his interpretation of "fair use". As an ISP lobbyist said, the privacy of his clients clients was purely what this case was about.

And you're right lizey. The copyright is reserved even without that notice. It's not legally necessary. Just like it's not necessary to inform you that shooting me in the head is illegal no matter how bad you want to.

However, I realize it's in my best interest to leave file sharers believing they're fighting a good fight or I won't have any one to illegally download mp3's from! Just do it on IRC, I hate Kazaa.

This is *copying* something that belongs to someone else, with their consent, and they keep it.

No, wrong. This is copying something without the consent of the rightful owner whom has already set up channels by which you could otherwise legally and morally procured a copy. In other words you are taking something which you have no right to own in direct violation of the wishes of the rightful owner. In short you are stealing! Whether or not you can afford to buy CDs is irrelevant, if you can't buy a CD in the way that the rightful owner of that CD wishes you too then you go without a CD! It's the recording industry's rights as the copyright holders to distribute this stuff in whatever way they like.

No, wrong. This is copying something without the consent of the rightful owner whom has already set up channels by which you could otherwise legally and morally procured a copy. In other words you are taking something which you have no right to own in direct violation of the wishes of the rightful owner. In short you are stealing! Whether or not you can afford to buy CDs is irrelevant, if you can't buy a CD in the way that the rightful owner of that CD wishes you too then you go without a CD! It's the recording industry's rights as the copyright holders to distribute this stuff in whatever way they like.

Then I'd like to know just how you plan to enforce this without invading privacy or filing lawsuits against little kids for thousands of dollars? :)

-- Long live the Female Messiah!

Then I'd like to know just how you plan to enforce this without invading privacy or filing lawsuits against little kids for thousands of dollars? :)


I don't remember ever having said that those were bad ideas. That's what our justice system is there for, to prosecute criminals!

Zero, the first condition of your question is what I find interesting in the court ruling. Privacy was apparently the issue.

On your second condition though, you make filing lawsuits against minors sound distasteful by your verbiage. I wonder, if you were the victim of say vandalism perpetrated by a twelve year-old girl, would you not seek reparations due to her age? Perhaps her gender? Would you not hold a "little girl" accountable for her actions?

No matter the answer I think we should all remain wary of little girls with spray paint. . . and especially glitter, they won't hesitate to throw that shit in your hair.

musicians who are in it for the money are not real musicians
that's bullshit.
in a capitalist society, everything we do is in search for profits (unless we're running a charity organization, but even then, we have a tight budget where we have to minimize costs)
be it music, or working in walmart, or teaching martial arts.
Nirvana, Hendrix, Elvis... they were all in it for the money

copying is not stealing
Copyright is one of the most important parts of capitalism.
there is a law that protects property from theft
intelectual property is property too
and copying intellectual property without authorization, is the same as taking physical property without authorization

intellectual property includes music, literary pieces, patents (medical, electronic, etc.)
if people stopped obeying copyright law, there would be no more incentive to produce any of the abovementioned

the victim here is the owner of the intellectual property (most immediately affected), and society (in the long run, it's hurt because people will stop producing new things)

you may not agree with it, but copyright is not a recent invention. and let me tell youk, if you're convicted of copyright violation, you will be punished by law

when i download a mp3 and like it, i buy the CD
why would you buy the CD if you already have the MP3?
if you can get the song listing and download any mp3 you want from the comfort of your comfy chair, why bother wasting half a day to getting to the store and actually spending your hard-earned money on some piece of plastic that can be scratched/ lost/ stolen?
if you do, you would clearly do it out of some sort of principle.

if peoples' principles is the only thing that protects artists from starving, artists will stop being artists.

"Well the difference is that the teen is once removed from the crime and certainly hasn't got any idea where the CD came from. However when we download music of songs who's album we don't already own a copy of then we are directly pirating, not just "supporting" piracy, we are the pirates ourselves."

i dont mind being a pirate, it gets me free music without giving money to anyone that i dont like

i did a google image search for "mona lisa" 13 200 results, on the first page, 12 were either photos of it, or duplicats of it, i didnt pay a cent for it though

ps is that just cos copyright runs out after a while?

I still think that stealing isn't the right term for downloading music for free.
Just in response to the statement that musicians in it for the money aren't musicians. Okay, yes, we're all in it for the money on some level. I do see what you're saying. On the other hand, there's a bit of a difference between Britney Spears and a band/person who can sing, maybe plays an instrument and writes their own songs.

yes. britney was drafted by marketers because of the potential of making money with her, and cobain, for example, was chosen because of talant. his label basically made a huge bet on him

but they were both in it for the money

Sorry, I've been outta town for a week and missed my opportunity to jump in. :)

But one line caught my eye:

otheadp sez;

if peoples' principles is the only thing that protects artists from starving, artists will stop being artists.

Once again; who the hell is starving here? And if you think artists will cease to be atrtists when money is no longer their 'pinnacle', then you have absolutely no idea what art or artists are all about - art reaches beyond the spectrum of capitalism and, as a matter of fact, flourishes best when it doesn't nest with capitalist desires.

Hey, I didn't read all of the posts here but just want to say that if a musician is good they can and will make lots of money by holding concerts. The more their music is shared and spread about the more popular their concerts. The CD makers are making a killing through being middlemen. Let them be the ushers at the concerts rather than sequester the art. Art should be for everyone's enrichment, not just middlemen or the artist. I'm afraid the recording industries are scared that their days are numbered due to the internet. They don't want to face the music.

Mr. Chips
Your post hit the nail on the head, so to speak. ;)

It is not just songs it is also books and programs and movies. While artist may be able to support them from concerts and merchandising, what is going to support programmers, nerds have no fans. And authors do not get royalties from concerts.

Since you are so free with someone else’s labor would you like to work for me with no pay? You can get a salary from some one else. I will not mind it is just that I think that ******* should be free to all the people. *******= your job.