| Author |
Message |
Hitchhiker
Rear Admiral
Joined: 11 Aug 2004
Posts: 3514
Location: Ontario, Canada
|
 Sun Mar 27, 2005 7:15 pm Downloading Music (and Other Copyrighted File Sharing) |
|
The debate over downloading music is interesting. I find myself having a hard time deciding, because although I respect copyright, it is a nest of grey areas that often lack clear definition.
I'm bringing up this topic, because this spring the Canadian government plans to introduce legislation that will modify the Copyright Act to make downloading and redistributing copyrighted music files illegal.
46 second Real Player news clip
| CBC wrote: |
C B C . C A A r t s - F u l l S t o r y :
Ottawa moves to quash file swapping
Last Updated Thu, 24 Mar 2005 16:29:28 EST
CBC Arts
OTTAWA - The federal government announced several proposed changes to Canada's Copyright Act on Thursday, aimed at stopping file sharing using programs like Kazaa.
If the amendments become law, internet service providers would be forced to make records of users who swap large numbers of songs or other material � like movies and television programs � online.
According to the announcement, the changes would "clarify that the unauthorized posting or the peer-to-peer file-sharing of material on the Internet will constitute an infringement of copyright.
"It will also be made clear that private copies of sound recordings cannot be uploaded or further distributed."
The proposed amendments are expected to be introduced in the House of Commons later in the spring.
The music industry is pushing to have the Copyright Act amended so it will be easier to sue file sharers in court.
"Clearly, once we get implementation there'll be no doubt ... it'll be illegal to engage in unauthorized file-sharing," Graham Henderson, the head of the Canadian Recording Industry Association, told the Canadian Press.
Under the reformed law, companies like Bell, Rogers and Shaw would be compelled to "play a role in curbing the misuse of their facilities for copyright infringement."
They and other service providers would have to alert subscribers when their connections are used for illegal file sharing, and would have to document the warnings that are sent out.
A court order would still be needed from prosecutors to have a look at the logs and identify the users in question.
The legislation also requires Canada to sign two international treaties sponsored by the World Intellectual Property Organization. By joining the treaties, the government would make it illegal for Canadians to swap music online.
Copyright �2005 Canadian Broadcasting Corporation - All Rights Reserved |
http://www.cbc.ca/story/arts/national/2005/03/24/Arts/file050324.html
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Sun Mar 27, 2005 7:56 pm |
|
We have something known as the Induce Act that had bene present here in the US, which would illegalize DVRs, VCRs, and more, and I don't like that. However, I am still undecided on this part of the issue. Do I think one should download music? I don't. Legally, I don't know though.
Should they be allowed to copy a CD that they borrowed from a friend? Yes, as long as they don't sell it.
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
webtaz99
Commodore
Joined: 13 Nov 2003
Posts: 1229
Location: The Other Side
|
| Sun Mar 27, 2005 7:59 pm |
|
I will respect copyright laws when I get movies and music directly from the people who CREATE them, not those who "own" them.
-------signature-------
"History is made at night! Character is who you are in the dark." (Lord John Whorfin)
|
|
|
Starbuck
faster...
Joined: 19 Feb 2003
Posts: 8715
Location: between chaos and melody
|
| Sun Mar 27, 2005 8:00 pm |
|
I think downloading music should be legal. These people who complain about it (as in the singers) are multi millionairs, and it doesn't make THAT much of a difference in their cut.
|
|
|
lionhead
Rear Admiral
Joined: 26 May 2004
Posts: 4020
Location: The Delta Quadrant (or not...)
|
| Mon Mar 28, 2005 3:46 am |
|
I also think downoading music should be legal. Why? Because you cannot stop it.
Movies and Games are a different subject, these can be stopped i think. I still don't understand why Game Companies haven't found an effective way of protection their games from illegal downloading on P2P programs (like you can only install the game if you mail a Sticker or some kind of card to the Game company so they will call you and give you a Code or a Registration that only they have.).
-------signature-------
Never explain comedy or satire or the ironic comment. Those who get it, get it. Those who don't, never will. -Michael Moore
|
|
|
Link, the Hero of Time
Vice Admiral
Joined: 15 Sep 2001
Posts: 5581
Location: Kokori Forest, Hyrule
|
| Mon Mar 28, 2005 11:37 am |
|
Actully, they do. They add little bits of code to games which gives them an inablity to be copied or even have images of them made. Far Cry is a good example.
Another good example is the new Half Life 2 and Counter Strike Source engine called Steam. Steam basically shuts down any try to crack or illegally download these games. Why? because before you can even play them you have to connect to the steam database for updates. It's a beautiful system.
-------signature-------
"Dissent is the highest form of patriotism." President Thomas Jefferson
"A man's respect for law and order exists in precise relationship to the size of his paycheck." Adam Clayton Powell Jr.
|
|
|
Birdy
Socialist
Joined: 20 Sep 2004
Posts: 13502
Location: Here.
|
| Tue Mar 29, 2005 2:59 am |
|
| 4evajaneway wrote: | | I think downloading music should be legal. These people who complain about it (as in the singers) are multi millionairs, and it doesn't make THAT much of a difference in their cut. |
True, I agree. But what about the little bands that are trying to break through? If we are starting to burn their cd's too, they don't make any money out of it, and especially they are the ones who most need it.
-------signature-------
Nosce te ipsum
|
|
|
lionhead
Rear Admiral
Joined: 26 May 2004
Posts: 4020
Location: The Delta Quadrant (or not...)
|
| Tue Mar 29, 2005 8:07 am |
|
| Link, the Hero of Time wrote: | Actully, they do. They add little bits of code to games which gives them an inablity to be copied or even have images of them made. Far Cry is a good example.
Another good example is the new Half Life 2 and Counter Strike Source engine called Steam. Steam basically shuts down any try to crack or illegally download these games. Why? because before you can even play them you have to connect to the steam database for updates. It's a beautiful system. |
Unfortunately they don't work. I got far cry the moment it got out and Half Life 2 even before that (most part was chinese). They are easy systems too crack (not that i do it though and i don't share them).
-------signature-------
Never explain comedy or satire or the ironic comment. Those who get it, get it. Those who don't, never will. -Michael Moore
|
|
|
Hitchhiker
Rear Admiral
Joined: 11 Aug 2004
Posts: 3514
Location: Ontario, Canada
|
| Tue Mar 29, 2005 8:33 pm |
|
The Hour just featured a segment about file sharing: apparently MGM is suing Grokster in an effort to sue software companies that manufacture file sharing software. Being an adolescent, I was not aware that in 1984, a similar case occurred between Hollywood and Sony/BetaMax (predecessor to VCR). Apparently Hollywood feared that VCRs would be used to make illegal copies of movies.
Twenty-one years later . . . and Hollywood makes large sums of money selling movies on videotape and DVD. Hopefully the entertainment industry will just capitalize in a similar way on the Internet; Apple's iTunes.com is an example of this.
I fired off an e-mail about the segment, I wish I'd saved it.  But it was to the effect of my post. I remember posing the question: if I can pay reasonable fees to download music online, why should not I be able to do the same with movies?
The digital information era is changing the way entertainment and businesses operate. 
|
|
|
Leo Wyatt
Sweetest Angel
Joined: 25 Feb 2004
Posts: 19045
Location: Investigating A Crime Scene. What did Quark do this time?
|
| Tue Mar 29, 2005 8:47 pm |
|
I don't download illegally. If I can not get it the legal way, I say heck with it. I just go to the store and buy a CD LOL
|
|
|
Beta6
Commander
Joined: 02 Jan 2005
Posts: 475
Location: ~*City Of Angels*~
|
| Tue Mar 29, 2005 9:49 pm |
|
I'm too lazy to sit down and download music or movies.. or go home and copy a cd. I'd rather just go buy the thing.. and it is over with
|
|
|
Lord Borg
Fleet Admiral
Joined: 27 May 2003
Posts: 11214
Location: Vulcan Capital City, Vulcan
|
| Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:00 pm |
|
| Hitchhiker wrote: | | 1984, a similar case occurred between Hollywood and Sony/BetaMax (predecessor to VCR). Apparently Hollywood feared that VCRs would be used to make illegal copies of movies. |
not surrpriseing they did that even though the made video taps lol  Perphaps if it were cheaper then more ppl would but the things? sure you should be able to make money. but why should you be able to make millions when all you did was distrabute?? to go off topic for a bit, thats why things like star trek eps are popular in file sharing. the seasons chost a hundred dollars or more!!! yet i can get south park or betre yer Law & order seasons for wayy lest then that. like less the 60 dollars!!
|
|
|
Beta6
Commander
Joined: 02 Jan 2005
Posts: 475
Location: ~*City Of Angels*~
|
| Tue Mar 29, 2005 11:29 pm |
|
^ I have bought my seasons for $150+ with tax included. I only need two more! And my collection will be complete!
It is kinda pricey, I agree. But well worth it.
|
|
|
Dirt
Exercise Boy
Joined: 19 May 2003
Posts: 2086
Location: a tree
|
| Wed Mar 30, 2005 12:36 am |
|
It's not like artists are sleeping out in dumpsters because of me, 99% of what I download happens to be very mainstream-ish, so they still make millions on it. Also the quality has gotten poorer and there's no real extra value to a legal product other than a warranty and a nice CD case (which I think is the dumbest reason to be spending $100 instead of just $1  ). Basicly it's theft, I'll admit that, but it's not as bad as they make it out to be.
|
|
|
borgslayer
Rear Admiral
Joined: 27 Aug 2003
Posts: 2646
Location: Las Vegas
|
| Wed Mar 30, 2005 1:24 am |
|
Downloading things illegally incourages people to download more instead of buy more. I think music downloading for free is a bad thing because it will hurt record companies. Those record companies have to make tons of cds, cd cases, and other stuff related to whatever artist. If people are downloading free music instead of buying cds it will hurt the music industry in the long run.
We should stop all p2p programs specially Kazza which is the worst of them all.
I say no to downloading free music.
|
|
|
Dirt
Exercise Boy
Joined: 19 May 2003
Posts: 2086
Location: a tree
|
| Wed Mar 30, 2005 2:09 am |
|
Kazaaaaaaaaaaa is so 2001! The music industry makes it out to be as it's only downloading that's bringing sales down, but I say it's the quality too. Besides, they can still make so much profit with lower sales, maybe it's time they change their prices?
|
|
|
Seven of Nine
Sammie's Mammy
Joined: 16 Jun 2001
Posts: 7871
Location: North East England
|
| Wed Mar 30, 2005 3:33 am |
|
There are two main types of downloader (not including those who pay to download:
Those who downlaod, download and download some more, never buying CDs.
Those who download one or two songs by an artist, then go and buy the CD because they know they like the music.
I fall into the second catagory. I would never buy CDs at all if I hadn't downloaded a track or two first.
Also, it costs around 50p (about $1) to make one CD, with all the packaging. Compare that with how much you have to pay for the CDs and even after allowing for the costs you can see how these record companies are makig so much profit even with reduced sales. Here, a single can cost upto �10 (about $20), an album up to �18 (around $35).
For comparison- the amount of money the law says a single 18 year old needs to live of (not including rent costs... assume that's paid) is �44.05 a week. Now, it doesn't matter how that person is getting that money, they could be working, or they might be a student, or they might be on benefits, but that �44 has to cover all bills, food, travel, clothing, and other expenses. Is it right that CDs should be such a luxury?
|
|
|
borgslayer
Rear Admiral
Joined: 27 Aug 2003
Posts: 2646
Location: Las Vegas
|
| Wed Mar 30, 2005 3:47 pm |
|
Artist must sell at least 500,000 copies of cds within a 5 month period in-order to stay in whatever label they are in. If they don't make the required cd sales the Record Company would release them from the label or as I say kick them off the label. This is why Recording Artist are mad at people who steal music.
The other thing is recording artist can spend up to a year rehearshing & recording an album which is a lot of work. I know well these artist expect to get lots of money for all of their hard work. The only way they can make money is through concerts and cd sales mostly. So if there cd sales are down because of people downloading there music instead of buying them. Not a lot of people will know what there band is about so a lot of people will not show up for concerts. Money from concerts, cds, and other merchandise would go down and have a bad effect on the recording artist. So downloading free music does have a negative effects.
|
|
|
lionhead
Rear Admiral
Joined: 26 May 2004
Posts: 4020
Location: The Delta Quadrant (or not...)
|
| Thu Mar 31, 2005 2:32 pm |
|
| borgslayer wrote: | Downloading things illegally incourages people to download more instead of buy more. I think music downloading for free is a bad thing because it will hurt record companies. Those record companies have to make tons of cds, cd cases, and other stuff related to whatever artist. If people are downloading free music instead of buying cds it will hurt the music industry in the long run.
We should stop all p2p programs specially Kazza which is the worst of them all.
I say no to downloading free music. |
Kazaa is not the worst, its the most popular but its downloads suck and its probably the only one oyu know.
No, we should worry about Bittorrent downloads and Grabit. THose things ar untrackable, everybody only grabs bits and pieces of a download from eachother so the sharing cannot be punished (since you cannot ptove someone hs the actual file on his computer).
-------signature-------
Never explain comedy or satire or the ironic comment. Those who get it, get it. Those who don't, never will. -Michael Moore
|
|
|
webtaz99
Commodore
Joined: 13 Nov 2003
Posts: 1229
Location: The Other Side
|
| Thu Mar 31, 2005 4:33 pm |
|
If a patent expires in 17 years, then songs and movies 17 years old or older should pass into public domain also.
Also, I believe that most people would be willing to pay around $5 per CD, if the greedy "distributing companies" didn't suck up so much profit. A mass-produced (1,000 per lot) CD in a jewel case with inserts only costs about $1.50, and shipping would only add about $1.00.
-------signature-------
"History is made at night! Character is who you are in the dark." (Lord John Whorfin)
|
|
|
Dirt
Exercise Boy
Joined: 19 May 2003
Posts: 2086
Location: a tree
|
| Thu Apr 07, 2005 1:04 pm |
|
Just got sim city, best thing about it is knowing it didn't cost me a single euro
|
|
|
Natira
The Cute One
Joined: 15 Jul 2001
Posts: 5407
Location: Wrapped around Bella's little finger!
|
| Thu Apr 07, 2005 2:07 pm |
|
I think that they need to compromise somewhere with it. For me personally downloading is an awesome option. I often find that I like one or two songs on a CD, so I have to choose to buy it for the one or two songs, or not get to have it. They don't always have every song on a single. Probably a pay per download or maybe per month option would be best.
|
|
|
|
Search
FAQ
Log in
