Some of Canada’s best-known musicians appeared on a different stage Wednesday — Parliament Hill — to band together and lobby politicians to toughen up Canada’s outdated copyright laws.The musicians say the industry has hit a low note because of Internet piracy and bootleg CDs. The musicians, who included Blue Rodeo’s Jim Cuddy and rocker Tom Cochrane, say the Copyright Act, which was drafted in 1908, is ill-equipped to address the issues of the 21st century.
“We’re basically like a Third World country right now, with our copyright law,” said Cochrane.
Graham Henderson, who heads the Canadian Recording Industry Association, says the Act has massive loopholes. He says it’s damaging the industry, the economy and the careers of artists.
The main argument is that the sharing of songs has hurt the industry. Bad. That is why new legislation should come into effect to curb these lost sales and go after those who distribute the songs, just like their american counterparts.
This has me in a rather big bind. There is alot of evidence that suggests that filesharing does not hurt sales by any noticable amount. As for the counterclaims mostly proposed by the RIAA, a quick analysis shows that their “evidence” is extremely flawed. For example, even though they sold more CDs last year than ever, they still called it a “loss” because the increase in sales was less than the year before. Not to mention the fact that the economy had been in rough shape that year and there were less original artist CD releases than before. So that’s dismissed.
Non-mainstream artists make virtually nill from each CD sold (they get $0.50-1.20USD per CD sold). So really, when you think about it, the RIAA has sued 6,952 users as of November 19th, with an average settlement of $3,000USD. That’s $20,856,000 in profits, or to the artists an equivalent of 40 million CDs sold! Now who is truly ripping who off here. The recording industries are ripping off the consumers, and they are ripping off the artists.
How does that relate to anything? I find it ironic that the article claims that it is the users who hurt the industry when in fact its more the industry hurting itself and the artists under them.
Now that leaves a final question: despite all the lies… is filesharing ethical? It’s a grey answer. If it was done in a more controlled manner, I would say yes. I am not, as anyone else, going to spend $30 on a CD that could turn out to be crap. I simply will not. I’d rather not buy the CD and not try it than waste good money. Because of filesharing though, because I’ve been able to taste-test new bands, I’ve now bought more CDs than ever… CDs of good bands. That said, I’ve downloaded alot of crap music which I’ve never bothered to buy. So filesharing is a perfect way out to gain money for the artists. As I said, its pretty grey. Piracy means that you gain profits at the expense of someone elses work. There are no profits for the users of filesharing networks, and therefore is not what I consider to be piracy. Never will be. Just like your neighbour passing you a copy of ACDC to listen to will never be piracy.
What if “worse came to worst” and the CD medium was to be replaced by filesharing. Would it be a blow to the artists? Hardly. Only to the [evil] recording industries. But that would never happen.
There is a solution to all of this however, that incorporates my feelings for the artists (though does not address filesharing replacing CDs as a medium for sure), the Creative Commons liscence. It basically allows you to do whatever, as long as its for personal use and non-profit. I think that’s a good blend. No one profits financially at the expense of artists, but everyone profits creatively by being free of legalities when making your home-movies or projects.