Canada music download record
p2pnet.net News:- The CRIA says its owners, the members of the Big 4 Organized Music cartel, are being “devastated” by customers who share music with each other. These men, women and children are “criminals” and “thieves,” say Warner Music (US), EMI (Britain), Vivendi Universal (France) and Sony BMG (Japan and Germany).
With file sharing, no money changes hands and no one has been deprived, permanently or temporarily, of something he or she used to own.
But files shared equal sales lost, says the CRIA (Canadian Recording Industry Association of America).
That notwithstanding, however, somehow, Canada’s digital download market grew more than any major market in 2006, state new Nielsen BDS statistics.
Why, then, are the Big 4 still trying to find ways to sue Canadian music fans?
The Canadian Music Creators Coalition wants to know. And so do Canadians.
“Propping up old business models that favour multinational record companies’ interests ahead of those of Canadian artists just doesn’t make sense,” says the Bare Naked Ladies’ Steven Page.
According to Nielsen, Canadian music download sales grew by 120% in 2006, well ahead of the 80% growth in Europe and 65% growth in the US, and overall sales grew 10%, says a CMCC statement, going on:
“Despite this growth, recent Canadian Press reports indicate that the major foreign music labels continue to pressure the federal government to move forward with radical changes to Canada’s Copyright Act. Major label representatives have consistently said that the only way the industry can survive is by making it easier to sue music downloaders and by providing legal protection to so-called ‘digital locks’.”
CMCC members, some of the, “very artists copyright laws are designed to protect,” aren’t convinced, says the group, which includes performers such as Avril Lavigne, Sarah McLachlan, BNL, Broken Social Scene, Matthew Good, Metric, Randy Bachman, Billy Talent, Sloan, Chantal Kreviazuk and Sum 41.
Major record label lobbyists are, “looking out for their shareholders, and seldom speak for Canadian artists,” says the group. “Legislative proposals that would facilitate lawsuits against our fans or increase the labels’ control over the enjoyment of music are made not in our names, but on behalf of the labels’ foreign parent companies.”
“Fans who share music are not thieves or pirates,” stated the CMCC when it started up last year. “Sharing music has been happening for decades.”
The CMCC says it stands on three key foundations:
Suing Our Fans is Destructive and Hypocritical
Artists do not want to sue music fans. The labels have been suing our fans against artists’ will, and laws enabling these suits cannot be justified in artists’ names
Digital Locks are Risky and Counterproductive
Artists do not support using digital locks to increase the labels’ control over the distribution, use and enjoyment of music or laws that prohibit circumvention of such technological measures. Consumers should be able to transfer the music they buy to other formats under a right of fair use, without having to pay twice.
Cultural Policy Should Support Actual Canadian Artists
The vast majority of new Canadian music is not promoted by major labels, which focus mostly on foreign artists. The government should use other policy tools to support actual Canadian artists and a thriving musical and cultural scene.
“The industry seems to say that if you don’t support suing downloaders you support giving music away for free,” says Page.
“That’s simply not true. In fact, there are numerous third-way alternatives out there. Changes to Canada’s copyright laws should reflect where our music business is going rather than looking back to where it has come from.”
Said New Democratic Party heritage critic Charlie Angus last year, “When a consumer legally purchases a CD they should not have to worry whether the disc is infected with spy ware that worms its way into their computer. Neither should the consumer worry that a company like Sony has the power to decide whether or not your favourite song can be played on an iPod, a hard drive or a non-Sony CD player. It is our job as Parliamentarians to protect consumers from the unchecked use of digital locks.
“And when it comes to assessing the ‘threats’ or ‘benefits’ from P2P, politicians need to be very wary about proscribing emerging technologies simply because it is upsetting existing business models.”
Stay tuned.
Also See:
CMCC statement – CMCC Congratulates Industry on Unparalleled Growth in Electronic Music Sales, January 30, 2007
should not have to worry – Feds face digital crossroads, May 16, 2006
Want to subscribe to p2pnet by email with Feedburner? Just click here.
rss feed: http://p2pnet.net/p2p.rss | | Mobile – http://p2pnet.net/index-wml.php | | And use our own p2pnet newsfeeds for your site
If your Net access is blocked by government restrictions, try Psiphon from the Citizen Lab at the University of Toronto’s Munk Centre for International Studies. Go here for the official download, here for the p2pnet download, and here for details. And if you’re Chinese and you’re looking for a way to access independent Internet news sources, try Freegate, the DIT program written to help Chinese citizens circumvent web site blocking outside of China. Download it here.
January 31st, 2007 at 8:05 pm
The music industry in America and Canada is going to be FORCED to start trusting their customers and taking off the DRM permenantly …or face extinction….it is that simple. I do not feel sorry for these bozo’s that want to stiffle innovation one bit! Neither does the average joe…. apparently.
January 31st, 2007 at 10:26 pm
Sounds like wishful thinking to me, and what could be easier? While I would like to believe that the music industry will indeed be forced to change their attitude towards music fans, and that they will have to eventually stop using DRM, the purpose of which being to clearly create a monopoly for themselves much more so than controlling the who/what/where/when/how a consumer uses their product, I just find it too hard to accept. The average joe makes up the vast majority of users out there, and most folks are simply too lazy to care at all unless directly affected at some point, just like I was recently regarding CGMS-A and my PVR. Hopefully there are still enough people out there working to make a difference that there will indeed be one… eventually. Just don’t expect things to change for the better any time soon, if they ever do at all.
January 31st, 2007 at 11:05 pm
It may be as you say but these actions have certainly altered my purchasing habits. I don’t want a cd that isn’t a cd and doesn’t support standard cd requirements. In otherwords, if I buy a cd or what appears to be a cd, I want it to play in my vehicle player. If I go in and want to use that same cd on my computer or in a portable player, I expect it to work. I don’t expect it to refuse to play because of some sort of protect scheme says it isn’t.
So these movies, music, and whatever aren’t what I seek. It can’t be fitted into my lifestyle and therefore makes the product far less than desirable when I can go get the same thing off the net at no cost and not have to put up with that. Simply, the majors aren’t meeting my demands and needs.
Then there’s the thing with being labeled a pirate and a thief. If they think that had no bearing on their sales, they are sadly wrong. I won’t even get into the way I feel about not supporting businesses whose business practices I don’t agree with. Let us say instead that it has cost them and I can personally attest to it.
January 31st, 2007 at 11:53 pm
The only reason that the majors are losing money is because their legal tactics and their DRM are coaxing users onto the P2P networks. Look at eMusic. It’s the second most popular digital store in the world. I also read somewhere that Audible Magic or some sort of watermarking is placed on eMusic MP3s so that they can be identified on P2P networks, and that, upon searching for some of the songs eMusic offers, relatively few watermarked results came up. I can’t verify that, but if it is true, it shows that consumers will keep to themselves when their needs are met instead of assisting in the illicit file trade, if only to help others in their situation.
February 1st, 2007 at 1:11 am
The falicacy of the RIAA’s and its Canadian conterpart’s contention that a song downloaded represents a lost sale is very apparent. Just because a song is downloaded by an individual does not necessarily mean that individual, in the absense of the ability to download, would actually spend money to buy the same song.
JB
February 1st, 2007 at 2:34 am
You have a point there. P2P protocols, and in particular BitTorrent which is currently the most popular of them, usually require a person to upload if they want to download, often in equal parts. If people were no longer forced to download illicit material, then nobody would be uploading it either. It really is that simple. Sure, shared folders containing copyrighted material would still be out there, but if none of it is exchanging hands and moving about from user to user, then little to no infringement would be taking place. Of course, the entertainment industry would like laws created that change this, making shared folders illegal even if nobody copies anything from them or they’re only available for a few moments (say by accident), but that doesn’t make all of what I just said any less true.
It really is too bad that the industry prefers to bury it’s head in the sand when it comes to putting audio and video content online for download. I’ve said for years now that if it were reasonably priced, of decent quality, and lacked measures that prevented me from using it where and when I want to, I’d be broke all the time. This is especially true in regards to high-def material.
I just purchased a nice big 1080p television recently for my home theater. My content provider options are very limited where I live, and am quite desperate to have all my TV in HD now that I’ve finally experienced it. Blu-Ray and HD-DVD are a start, but the format war hinders them a lot. Sadly, the industry would rather stomp out any and all forms of online distribution, refusing to see just how much money they could be making, which I have no doubt is a lot. Probably on the order billions per year.
Despite being able to get music, movies, and TV shows for free through P2P, I’m sure many folks would rather have a perfectly legal solution that didn’t put them at risk of litigation, and that definitely includes myself. I just don’t understand what their issue exactly is over this though, and why they prefer to ruin lives instead of making the world a better place for all. Maybe they refuse to believe that people actually would pay for services in the manner I’ve suggested? Perhaps it’s fear mixed with greed? Who knows, but whatever it is they need to realize that they aren’t just hurting us, the paying public, but themselves as well. I do know that the longer they go on destroying lives like they’ve been doing, the harder it will be to make a come back. After all, the public can only take so much before the damage to relations becomes irreparable.