CRIA on ’sloppy thinkers’
p2p news view / p2pnet: While Captain Copyright has garnered significant attention over the past week, another group of educators have been targeted with a similar message. CRIA’s Graham Henderson recently published an opinion piece in the Spring 2006 issue of the Recorder, the Journal of the Ontario Music Educators’ Association titled Music Students Face Uncertain Prospects Because of Illegal Downloading.
I can’t find an online version of the article, but I think it is does merit comment. As the title suggests, CRIA’s message for Canada’s music educators is that many young people who dream of a career in music face severely limited prospects.
The article says that “this is neither for lack of talent nor an eager audience. Both of those ingredients are as strong or stronger than ever, thanks in good part to the excellent work of Canada’s music educators. The threat to music students’ future success comes from rampant and uncurbed music file-swapping on the Internet.”
This passage represents the high water mark of the article.
From there we learn that “the implications [of file sharing] are troubling, not only for those who dream a music career, but for those who believe in social values like honesty and respect for property, and for anyone hoping to make a living – in any field.” [bold mine]
If that wasn’t bad enough, the harm of downloading extends to ideas themselves – “plagiarism has become a significant problem in our schools. If unchecked, we will graduate sloppy thinkers, less capable of creating original products of the mind that will in turn keep us competitive internationally.”
Music teachers, therefore, face a major societal obligation. The article concludes by stating that they “can and should play a central role in the solution. It is time that educators begin a dialogue with their students about the harm caused by illegal downloading, not only to secure a better future for those who dream of a career in music, but to improve the prospects of all young people and society at large.”
Even Captain Copyright would be left speechless with this parody-like piece.
Michael Geist
[Geist is the Canada Research Chair in Internet and E-commerce Law at the University of Ottawa. He can be reached by email at mgeist[at]uottawa.ca and is on-line at www.michaelgeist.ca.]
June 9th, 2006 at 5:05 pm
I posted this elsewhere but thought it really needs to be addresses everytime the **AA’a and associeted open their mouths (or their wallets to purchase our politicians)
The RIAA, CRIAA etc. are owned by the big four, and are therefore an extension of a corporation (grouped together kind of like a monopoly or interestingly enough, how the mob has been depicted over the years).
The motivation of these ‘trade groups’ or whatever guise they go under is pure and simple economics and they can be counted on to do one thing and one thing only: whatever is in the best interest of their stock holders.
They cannot be expected or even thought of doing what is best for their ’suppliers’ (that would be the artists/creators for those slow people out there) and for their ‘consumers’ (damn I miss being a customer, guess that’s why I don’t ‘consume’ their ‘product’).
They are NOT in the business of looking after any country’s, regions, ethnic groups (etc.) heritage…they’re only concern is the bottom line.
June 9th, 2006 at 7:18 pm
And the CRIA’s solution, make into law a Canadian version of the DCMA as long as it’s at least as strict as the American version, if not stricter.
Well here’s something to read about how great that law is:
http://www.spectrum.ieee.org/print/3673
June 11th, 2006 at 11:22 pm
Who is doing the sloppy thinking here, Mr. Henderson?
Most performance artists who have been “in the business” for any length of time, know that unless and until they make it to the very top echelon of performing artists where they can make demands of the labels rather than acquiescing to the demands of their label, that they are going to make their money from live performances. Mr. Henderson, you should certainly know this also. If you are unaware of this, your are totally incompetent to hold your position due to a significant deficiency in understanding the basics of your industry
Cutting albums is just a necessary evil in order to become popular enough to get the radio airplay that’s necessary to become popular enough to have people want to spend money to come see you play live, or to get booked for a television gig.
This is NOT an emerging career strategy for performance artists. The Grateful Dead knew this. They spent far more time on the road than in the studio and did well enough so that there were plenty of millions of dollars belonging to Jerry Garcia for all sorts of everyone to fight over.
All of the members of the “Rat Pack” knew this. They’d make more money in a Las Vegas showroom in two weeks than they would from a platinum album, but they made the albums, so that people would want to come and hear them sing the new songs right in front of them on the stage. Some even transcended this. Wayne Newton doesn’t even have to cut albums any more. People just shell out their money (or get comped if they are ‘players’) and pour into the showroom to hear him sing Danke Schein among other things.
Perry Como and Andy Williams knew this. They made the albums, but it was their television careers that made them wealthy. Perry is gone now, but Andy has his own venue in Branson and packs the house every night. (We’ve forgiven Andy for foisting the Osmonds on us.)
Please Mr. Henderson, spare us the sanctimonious scolding about the troubling implication of filesharing for those who believe in honesty trying to make a living in ANY field. What about all of the politicians that your organization has tried to get to see things your way with campaign contributions? I think most honest people would find that ‘troubling’, if not totally outrageous. Such feelings would not be the result of “sloppy thinking.”
–TG