Cryptowen wrote:^Difference there is that something like beer is a physical product & the company must create each individual unit. A music recording is more like an idea & can be recreated (in digital format) an infinite number of times for virtually no cost.
Most of the albums I've torrented there would have been 0% chance of me buying before I heard them. Now that I have there is a slightly higher than 0% chance of me buying them (and sometimes I actually do!). I've heard the same from other people. That probably doesn't make torrenting right if you think it's wrong, but it actually can be positive as far as money making goes for artists below a certain popularity level (ie, bad for people like Eminem or Madonna, good for the obscure Nigerian metal band you would have never heard about otherwise).
clinton wrote:lost in the shuffle.
macrae11 wrote:Sharing is not posting something online for anybody to use.
macrae11 wrote: The problem with those of you promoting a "sharing" or try before you buy attitude are in the vast minority.
Malcolm Boyce wrote:You don't have to have a bunch of industry weasels tell you your music is viable anymore. Thousands/millions of hits can't be wrong. Unfortunately we are getting the good with the bad.
macrae11 wrote:Like Mat gave me a copy of a Missy Higgins CD, I loved it and went out and bought my own copy of that album and another one of hers. He also gave me one of a band from out west that I don't remember, and didn't dig so I chucked it.
clinton wrote:Disclaimer: I am playing devil's advocate for the sake of taking part in this conversation. I don't necessarily have a fully formed opinion on the issue and I see both positives and negatives in both arguements.
To steal a quote, "Bank robbery continues... but is kept to a manageable level". The fact is as soon as they put the screws to the ISPs... the guys with the most to lose, to come up with solutions, and they will, it will make it harder and harder for this stuff to squeak through.RoadDog wrote:Prohibition didn't work for booze, and it won't work in this instance either, someone will find a way around whatever the government or industry decides to do, for some it will be their mission in life.
No. The "illegal" part of it is on the end where the person copies it and then uploads it. You downloading it just completes the cycle. No loophole there.Jef wrote:Only a very small sample of it gets shared at a time and all the small bits are re-assembled after they are gathered from many sources. So, technically, it's a loophole in the copyright laws.
This "tax" doesn't wave anyone from having to adhere to existing laws. It was only meant to offset some of the losses being incurred by illegal copying of music. It might make you feel better, but it's not any more legal.Jef wrote:Also, what about the additional tariff the Canadian government applied to recordable media? To my knowledge this has never been lifted. In my opinion, if I download a file from the internet and store it on a CD that I paid the government's hidden surtax on, then I figure I'm covered. The government (supposedly) gives this money back to the artists.
Malcolm Boyce wrote: The fact is as soon as they put the screws to the ISPs... the guys with the most to lose, to come up with solutions, and they will, it will make it harder and harder for this stuff to squeak through.
You are right, about unauthorized uploading of complete files being illegal...but downloading torrent bits is not yet illegal in Canada.Malcolm Boyce wrote:No. The "illegal" part of it is on the end where the person copies it and then uploads it. You downloading it just completes the cycle. No loophole there.Jef wrote:Only a very small sample of it gets shared at a time and all the small bits are re-assembled after they are gathered from many sources. So, technically, it's a loophole in the copyright laws.
...going to be difficult to enforce.Malcolm Boyce wrote:Guaranteed. They will be going after Torrents eventually.
My point is that there is revenue being generated for the artists from downloading files and burning them to CD's. Not a lot of people are aware of that.Malcolm Boyce wrote:This "tax" doesn't wave anyone from having to adhere to existing laws. It was only meant to offset some of the losses being incurred by illegal copying of music. It might make you feel better, but it's not any more legal.Jef wrote:Also, what about the additional tariff the Canadian government applied to recordable media? To my knowledge this has never been lifted. In my opinion, if I download a file from the internet and store it on a CD that I paid the government's hidden surtax on, then I figure I'm covered. The government (supposedly) gives this money back to the artists.
IMO, I don't see what's wrong with providers blocking sites and/or servers that are blatently offering content that is illegal in our location. This concept of the internet being above any regulation seems to be born out of some fear of big brother messing with your business. News flash... They already have their hands into everything, including your wallet.Drumwaiter wrote:Malcolm Boyce wrote: The fact is as soon as they put the screws to the ISPs... the guys with the most to lose, to come up with solutions, and they will, it will make it harder and harder for this stuff to squeak through.
That would then get into the net neutrality debate. If ISPs are able to control the content that's given priority (or that certain sites are being censored) then it's a whole other kettle o' fish.
If you can find what you're looking for to download, so can an ISP and then block it. It's a fact of life. And once again, they're not going to "stop" it, just make it difficult enough to deter, just like any other crime like theft.Jef wrote:...going to be difficult to enforce.Malcolm Boyce wrote:Guaranteed. They will be going after Torrents eventually.
If you think in 2010 the majority of illegal downloads are being burned to CDs so revenue is proportionally being generated back to the artists, check again.Jef wrote:My point is that there is revenue being generated for the artists from downloading files and burning them to CD's. Not a lot of people are aware of that.Malcolm Boyce wrote:This "tax" doesn't wave anyone from having to adhere to existing laws. It was only meant to offset some of the losses being incurred by illegal copying of music. It might make you feel better, but it's not any more legal.Jef wrote:Also, what about the additional tariff the Canadian government applied to recordable media? To my knowledge this has never been lifted. In my opinion, if I download a file from the internet and store it on a CD that I paid the government's hidden surtax on, then I figure I'm covered. The government (supposedly) gives this money back to the artists.
You're reading more into my post than was written. I didn't mention anything about the amount of revenue being generated. Also, not all CD's that are bought are used to record music, so actually the artists are getting a 'royalty' on CD's that are used for non music files as well. It's a win-win situation for the artists in that regard. As long as the levy remains on the recordable media, people should continue to load them up with downloaded material.Malcolm Boyce wrote:If you think in 2010 the majority of illegal downloads are being burned to CDs so revenue is proportionally being generated back to the artists, check again.
Jef wrote:Also, not all CD's that are bought are used to record music, so actually the artists are getting a 'royalty' on CD's that are used for non music files as well. It's a win-win situation for the artists in that regard. As long as the levy remains on the recordable media, people should continue to load them up with downloaded material.
wikipedia wrote:The Canadian Private Copying Collective has developed a methodology by which the proceeds are distributed to rights holders based on commercial radio airplay and commercial sales samples, ignoring radio/college airplay and independent record sales not logged by Soundscan. This methodology has been criticized as favouring major-label artists at the expense of the long-tail. As of September 7, 2007 over one hundred million dollars has been distributed.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests