Hey guys you need to read this.

[Gerritt]

http://www.cbc.ca/consumer/story/2007/02/1...e-warnings.html

 

 

 

Please read it, and understand it... and then make your choice.

 

 

Just wanted to give us OFC'rs a heads up on what is to come.

 

 

Gerritt.

[mepps]

Good read, what happens if you have no email address with your ISP?

[GbayGiant]

Sorry corporate America, are you're billions of profit not enough for you, stock holders not happy. Nice scare tactic, but my Ipod will be filled.

[jughead]

Sorry corporate America, are you're billions of profit not enough for you, stock holders not happy. Nice scare tactic, but my Ipod will be filled.

 

Then you're a thief John, no different than the people who broke into my cottage and stole my tv and no different than any other shoplifter.

[ricoboxing]

Then you're a thief John, no different than the people who broke into my cottage and stole my tv and no different than any other shoplifter.

 

yeah , and John ur no different than those thieves who stole direct tv signals outta the sky.

 

oh wait, that was me too.

[Corey]

OK... my $0.02.

 

First of all, downloading music is theft, plain and simple.

 

Where I have issues though are these points.

 

1. In Canada, we pay a levee on all recordable media, that is passed back to the various companies who distribute music and video in this country. As someone who buys a lot of media, does that mean that I am pre-paying these companies that lose when I download copyrighted material? To me this means that no matter what I do with the media, I am paying money to these companies which makes it legal for me to download music because they already have their cut.

 

2. These companies who claim to lose money because of illegal downloading of music have posted record profits in the past few years, which are the only years that music has been available en masse on the internet. Does this mean that "try before you buy" might be the actual effect of all this illegal music downloading? Seems to be a working business model that the recording industry refuses to buy into.

 

3. A very large number of recording artists support the free download of their music. People still buy the media, which is obvious by recording industry profits. The musicians get such a small cut of media sales, that by having more people listen for free, more people will attend concerts and events, which is where most recording artists make their real money.

 

4. The recording industry knows they cannot stop the illegal download of music. Very much like the war on drugs. The recording industry have been fairly successful using scare tactics via lawsuits to gain money from the ordinary person. These people include a lot of older, retired people who down know much about computers, but have children and grandchildren who are computer savvy. Lately there have been numerous successful countersuits against the recording industry showing a growing trend of right back at you.

 

Either way, I have downloaded music. I own thousands of CD's and have spent more than my share on music. I do still buy certain CD's, but only after I am sure I like the majority of the music on the disk. How do I find out? I download certain tracks and listen to them. The "try before you buy" business model would be a fantastic model for the recording industry to move to, it works.

 

cd.

[JerseyDog]

The only upside of illegal downloading is that this large scale theft will drag our media companies into the 21st Century and offer a distribution model that people actually want.

 

It is however theft (for the most part). Downloading is stealing from the artist, their media companies, etc.

 

And record companies don't make massive profits anymore. Some are laying off thousand, closing, etc. They simply don't sell CD's. In 2000 selling a million CD's took at week. Now even some of the biggest artists don't sell a million CD's - in fact 250-400k units in the first week would be considered a SMASH HIT.

 

There is a reason that music today might not seem as good as it used to be. The record companies concentrate on producing records of the audience they know are more likely to buy a CD (imagine the American Idol, soft rock types).

 

Overall its a losing situation for everyone unless you just wanna listen to Zep 4 over and over and over.

[Hellfish]

LOL too much... Yall take this issue a lil too seriously, i think this is more like a Robin hood situation take from the rich and give to the poor, maybe not ethical in some peoples books, but u cant please everybody. Come on itz like sony distributing over 150,000 cds that have a form of spyware in them that foesnt allow u to play a specific cd, and they have a class action against them for that, so the big poor multi billion dollar music industry isnt not guilty as well. reminds me of metallica and napster the 300 million they made just want enough. Like it was said b4 they are producing some of the highest grossing years RECORDS so listen now and buy later is def working. Itz just like if u have pirated satellite and u get the PIRATE channel lol too much, makes me laugh if uve seen this u know what im talking about. I think alot of it has to do with the older generation not growing up with computers like the younger generation did, i mean i have been d/l music, games, movies for close to 12 yrs now, so that could have alot to do with my attitude on it but, im all for it.

[Puckhead]

That reminds me that there was this song I was itching to download...

[jughead]

One of the reasons I take it seriously is because I lose about 60-80k a year in profits because of illegal duplication and file sharing distribution of stuff I have copyright over, wrote and created. It ain't Robin hood stealing from me and I'm not a huge media conglomerate.

 

If it's just a matter of you having the ethics to look the other way because you figure it's just a rich company then fine. Banks make a lot of money, is it Ok for me to steal a few bucks from them. Rapella and bass Pro do OK, is it all right for me to pocket a few lures next time I'm in there?

 

The guy who broke into my cottage probably figured hey if he can afford a cottage he probably has insurance so taking a TV is no big deal. I guess that's where his ethics lie, which at the end of the day are pretty much in line with yours.

[Puckhead]

I would assume then that if you are loosing 80K/annum on copywrite infringement, that should be somewhere around 2-3% of all revenue? Even if it's 10%, it's called a cost of doing business, no different than rent now a days. If it was that big of an issue, then you would get out of the business and do something else.

 

Bottom line, something seems to be working for the industry in that they are doing pretty darn good what with all this downloading going on. This most definately could be stopped but it isn't - why? Industry knows that music exposure is 10 fold now which is more than making up for the people that don't buy the CD if they like the song they download. The industry cannot "agree" with downloading. It cannot condone it or the people that are buying CDs will not bother if it's "legal". The secret here - the industry likes downloading, which is why nothing major is being done about it both in Canada and the US. Think about it for two seconds and you will be enlightened. Media downloading has nothing to do with morals or ethics. It's all marketing. You think no one saw this coming? Seriously? Multi-gazillion$ tech companies like Sony Media didn't see this coming? It's almost comical that this farce has even gone on this long.

 

You can step down off of your soap box now.

[LeXXington]

What you can download stuff from the internet without paying for it...????

 

What a shame, I fully enjoy going to the movies and paying $12.00 to see a movie,

[Corey]

One of the reasons I take it seriously is because I lose about 60-80k a year in profits because of illegal duplication and file sharing distribution of stuff I have copyright over, wrote and created. It ain't Robin hood stealing from me and I'm not a huge media conglomerate.

 

Not to try and offend you here, but 60-80k a year is bunk. I know several artists who have descent album sales still and don't see nearly that much money. Considering the average artists receives less than $2 for each CD sold, you are saying that because people download your music you lose 40,000 CD sales per year? That's what I am calling bunk on. I bet your production runs are less than 25,000 a year and still don't sell that much. You would have to be the tragically hip to make that dollar amount claim as far as loss's.

 

You should know better than anyone that it's the touring and product sales that make you the real money. How much are your production costs for making an album? Less than $100,000 I would imagine. Why are we paying the same amount of money for a CD as we are for a DVD which usually cost upwards of $50 million to produce? The average cost of a film production is 500 times that of an audio production, which means that if a DVD costs $20, an audio CD should cost less than a dollar to buy.

 

I cannot stand artist who defend the recording industry knowing that they are getting it up the donkey just as much as the consumer is.

 

cd.

[jughead]

I would assume then that if you are loosing 80K/annum on copywrite infringement, that should be somewhere around 2-3% of all revenue? Even if it's 10%, it's called a cost of doing business, no different than rent now a days. If it was that big of an issue, then you would get out of the business and do something else.

 

It's around 4-5 %. I get it's a cost of business the same way stores have to factor in shoplifting as a cost of business. This doesn't mean that shoplifters aren't breaking the law.

 

Bottom line, something seems to be working for the industry in that they are doing pretty darn good what with all this downloading going on. This most definately could be stopped but it isn't - why? Industry knows that music exposure is 10 fold now which is more than making up for the people that don't buy the CD if they like the song they download. The industry cannot "agree" with downloading. It cannot condone it or the people that are buying CDs will not bother if it's "legal". The secret here - the industry likes downloading, which is why nothing major is being done about it both in Canada and the US. Think about it for two seconds and you will be enlightened. Media downloading has nothing to do with morals or ethics. It's all marketing. You think no one saw this coming? Seriously? Multi-gazillion$ tech companies like Sony Media didn't see this coming? It's almost comical that this farce has even gone on this long.

 

I have thought about it for more than two seconds. In fact, judging by what you just wrote, have thought about it longer than you and understand it better. Sony makes it's money on platforms. The actual music sales are a secondary concern to them. The people who make the actual music, or the movies or the TV shows are the ones who get screwed. They also cross -collateralize distribution now so any lose gets covered by profits from others. Again, at the end of the day it the person who creates the product that gets shafted.

 

You can sugar coat it anyway you want to appease your ethics but it is still theft. The only thing comical is your profound lack of understanding of how things work

 

You can step down off of your soap box now.

 

No thanks.

[Rich]

Oh man.. who cares!

[jughead]

Not to try and offend you here, but 60-80k a year is bunk. I know several artists who have descent album sales still and don't see nearly that much money. Considering the average artists receives less than $2 for each CD sold, you are saying that because people download your music you lose 40,000 CD sales per year? That's what I am calling bunk on. I bet your production runs are less than 25,000 a year and still don't sell that much. You would have to be the tragically hip to make that dollar amount claim as far as loss's.

 

You should know better than anyone that it's the touring and product sales that make you the real money. How much are your production costs for making an album? Less than $100,000 I would imagine. Why are we paying the same amount of money for a CD as we are for a DVD which usually cost upwards of $50 million to produce? The average cost of a film production is 500 times that of an audio production, which means that if a DVD costs $20, an audio CD should cost less than a dollar to buy.

 

I cannot stand artist who defend the recording industry knowing that they are getting it up the donkey just as much as the consumer is.

 

cd.

 

I am not a musician. I work in film and television and I have a distribution arm for the company that oversees the sales of series and films. The impact of file sharing affects the company in two areas. dvd sales and second window sales. One of the more lucrative revenue avenues used to be second window sales. If I am paid to make a show for one country and retain the rights i then have the ability to distribute that show to another country without violating the first countries right to air the show. If and when people copy the shows and file share them I lose a % of sales for DVd and I also lose a big % of second window profits because people are less willing to pay for a show that can be downloaded for free.

[Hellfish]

Corey u took the words out of my mouth. Theres no possible way u could be loosing that amount of money. I understand the logistics behind illegal d/l and everything else but has nothing to do with ethics or morales, and it is not the same as someone stealing ur tv from ur cottage. Dont get me wrong i still do purchase Cds and dvds or computer games for that matter just i always do a lil preview first, thats all. Condem me, call the cops i dunno, i guess im just a horrible person and dont belong here..

[Puckhead]

"Sony makes it's money on platforms. The actual music sales are a secondary concern to them"

 

SonyBMG doesn't care about music sales???

 

"The people who make the actual music, or the movies or the TV shows are the ones who get screwed"

 

Seriously?

....

OK, I'm not wasting much more time on this and I'm not going to spend a whole morning here explaining marketing 101. NEW sales due to exposure is outweighing LOST sales due to piracy. Ergo, industry keeps piracy alive and well. The technology has been around since the advent of "napster" to kill all media piracy completely. It hasn't been employed. Why?

 

In your verticle, you are talking about illegal distribution of movies for profit - it isn't the same thing. if someone rips your movie and re-sells it somewhere else, that's wrong and isn't helping anyone - it's completely different than what we are talking about here. I understand your point from that angle but again, that has nothing to do with music or movie downloading for personal use. What you are referring to is a black market trade.

Edited February 16, 2007 by Puckhead

[Kirk]

I guess the fishing analogy is if I personally think theres lots of fish and no one is going to notice one or two fish, I can keep an overlimit, whats the difference if I keep 7 bass instead of 6, start fishing one day before the season opens (avoid the opening day rush)...

 

If theivery is 'only' at 5% its only that because there is enforcement, otherwise, most store shelves would be emptied.

[jughead]

No I'm not talking about black market trade. I'm not talking about people ripping my stuff and reselling it. I am talking about people file sharing and the fact that it decreases the value of my product.

 

I'm not trying to be a jerk here but I have sat in a meeting where the price per episode of a show I was selling was negotiate down and the specific point of the negotiation was the fact that the show had been ripped and the episodes were now obtainable for free.

 

As for the marketing comment, there is merit to that for the parent company but it still hurts the revenue stream for the artist.

 

As for the technology to prevent piracy completely it may be there for now but it wouldn't be there the week after they implemented it. There is nothing out there that can stop someone from ripping a product. If it can be played it can be ripped.

[GbayGiant]

Then you're a thief John, no different than the people who broke into my cottage and stole my tv and no different than any other shoplifter.

LOL too much... Yall take this issue a lil too seriously, i think this is more like a Robin hood situation take from the rich and give to the poor

 

Exactly what I was thinking, rich get richer, poor get poorer.

 

Jughead don't worry it won't be me in your cottage. I have a conscience and it will tell me I'm wrong if ever for downloading music and video, but I doubt it. How about the bank loan you got to pay for the cottage, tell me they are not the real thieves ? they broke into your cottage before you even moved in.

Edited February 16, 2007 by GbayGiant

[Hellfish]

GbayGiant, lol the banks are def the true thieves here. And Rich apparently some ppl do care cause there is 2 pages of replies, def is a good subject to debate when there isnt much going on in the forum. Nothing wrong with a good debate.

[Headhunter]

Here's my 2cents on the topic...

-the average disc cost's significantly more the $100,000.00 to produce. That amount is basically the amount a top tier band would spend to DEMO the songs for their new disc! Recording studio's, capable of delivering Album quality recordings run in the $500 to $2000 an hour range. If you figure that the average band will spend 3- 6 months in the studio to produce an album, well do the math!

-artist are paid for their product in many different forms; performance rights (Socan) Mechanical rights, album sales, performing/touring, merchandising etc... They don't get a dime, until the record company that fronts the recording costs, has re-coupted the initial investment. Only after X number of units are sold, does the artist actually see a cheque.

-every song/album that is down loaded, for free, is reaching in (hands in your pockets) to the artist's wallet.

Some have suggested that artist make their money off of merchandising and touring... well historically, that money was their gravey! Now, it's the main course.

-the quality of MP3's or WMA's is horrid! Personally, I only listen to them on my portable player (only use my own cd's, never down load) Could'nt pay me to listen to them on my stereo... they sound like poop!

I have to agree with those who believe it's stealing, but it's just an opinion!

HH

[Rich]

Reaching into the artists wallet? Well I dont see any of those bands having to support themselves with part time jobs on the side. Give me a break. Oh no, Britney will only make $500,000,000 this year instead of her usual 550,000,000! What a crime!

[majorlifts]

My advice is, drop Rogers they are scam, and they have a way of recording and striping you of content downloaded. Its called digital rights management. They have made a pact willingly with the authorities to give out any information about you and the content you download, because it works in their favor. So beware of bit torrents bought or own by large corps, or ones that merge with large corps. Dont use them period.

 

We should send an email to Rogers and other large corporations threatening them to pay their deferred taxes that we end up paying. Maybe Bank of Montreal would like an email from us telling them to pay their deferred taxes, considering they profited billions last year. Make them feel guilty for all the social programs our kids miss out on because they wont pay their taxes. They want it all, they would take our blood if they could suck it out of our veins without getting caught.

 

Greedy scum bags!! We pay for the web service!! We pay for the lap tops or PCs!! We pay for the software!! We pay for the dvds and the cds. We even make donations to web sites that we enjoy and wish to keep around. DO NOT TELL US WHAT TO DO WITH OUR PRIVATE USE OF THESE FACILITIES.