Hey guys you need to read this.

[Headhunter]

Rich, what's the difference betwenn down loading songs or photo copying copy right protected documents? None, both are illegal. I suggest that, those who don't find anything wrong with this, should perhaps take the time and resources to create something, anything really and then watch as others copy it for free!

I bet the Toronto Star would be a little annoyed if I copied the paper every morning and put it on line for anyone to down load! I bet their advertisers would be lowering their price paid to Tor Star as well!

BTW - Rich, the Bare Naked Ladies spent many a cold day at the corner of Queen and Spadina, playing for free, to anyone who would listen to them, then head for their waitering jobs at night, only to return to the corner the next day, all to get noticed! Only a very small % of artists actually make money! You should listen to Kim Mitchell on Q107 every day, you'll learn something!

HH

[Hellfish]

Rich u prove a good point there, as i said b4 rich get rich and poor get poorer. Again it seems the consensus is with the younger crowd with it being ok and the (dont crucify me) older crowd it being stealing, well fair be it cause in a sense it is stealing, but i know im speaking for the majority of ppl who d/l will at a later time go out and by the album, i know for me ive bought so many cds which i thought i would like but wasted alot i mean ALOT of money on cds i dont even listen to, so i guess u can call it smart shopping by d/l it first to get a feel for it. As far as cogeco is concerned i still have the old box so i get the unlimited d/l and i d/l alot either it be ebooks, torrents what have ya never got a bad letter yet from them

[DanTheMan]

Oh man.. who cares!

 

Haha, I agree

[Rich]

BTW - Rich, the Bare Naked Ladies spent many a cold day at the corner of Queen and Spadina, playing for free, to anyone who would listen to them, then head for their waitering jobs at night, only to return to the corner the next day, all to get noticed!

 

It's a good thing the multi-billion dollar recording industry signed them then isnt it. They seem to be doing pretty well now even though people are downloading their music.

[verno]

If I had a million dollars.....Great thanks a lot now I can't get that tune out of my head.

Edited February 16, 2007 by verno

[Puckhead]

BTW - Rich, the Bare Naked Ladies spent many a cold day at the corner of Queen and Spadina, playing for free, to anyone who would listen to them, then head for their waitering jobs at night, only to return to the corner the next day, all to get noticed! Only a very small % of artists actually make money! You should listen to Kim Mitchell on Q107 every day, you'll learn something!

HH

 

Give me a break. How many folks spend many a cold day waiting for the bus to go work the line for peanuts every day. Are you shedding tears for all of those folks too? They didn't mind charging $20-25 for a CD that cost 1.50 to produce when they made it big, did they? They spent those days at the corner because they wanted to. No one forced them to play so let's stop the heart bleeding. And last time I checked, Kim Mitchell takes home his rake when he preforms too, these guys aren't bloody charities here, as much as they would like to think the world would stop without them. Stop being a lemming.

[majorlifts]

Ok I have a small family, so when we hit the cinema it costs 13 bucks a ticket thats about 60 somthin with tax not including pop and snacks. If the movie I watch is total crap, which has been the case many times, I feel burned. So now I watch the preview on the apple movie trailer site. Then I download the movie, which in many cases is not good quality, and if I feel its worth watching on the big screen, they have no probs getting my money. Same with music.

 

Put out good stuff people are willing to pay to see. They always say13 million at the box office lower than expected, they never say 13 million people burned at the box office. Critics are payed to give good ratings that is fact backed by the star and those quotes written in by the so called nytimes and so forth, are also put in by the movie companies, also fact. So whos robbing who???

 

I can tell ya.

[GbayGiant]

I bet the Toronto Star would be a little annoyed if I copied the paper every morning and put it on line for anyone to down load! I bet their advertisers would be lowering their price paid to Tor Star as well!

 

Headhunter, as far as I know you can read the papers on the net, up to date, I know the Sun does because I read it on the net, has all the top stories of the day, have not looked for the Star but I'm sure they do to.

[majorlifts]

When I say download, I mean you can go to any site you wish, even rogers and pay next to nothing to have to see the movie you want, and I believe ipod has a site where you pay 99 cents a song. not bad really. Everyone wins see.

[aplumma]

All ISP's will turn over any information to the authorities if you perpetrate a crime on the internet. That includes copy right infringement illegal up/down loading and other crimes that are defined by the governing legal system. If the law is blurry then they send you a notice if the law is concrete then you will get busted. Right now Canada is at the point of getting notices and eventually the laws will be changed so they can bust you.

For some people it is hard to be honest if no one is watching them for others it is easy to blur the line to make it fit their conscience and for a few your conscience can guide you to the right answer. Past injustices should never be used to justify future moral discrepancy's nor should crimes against faceless industries be thought of as uninjured victims. Eventually it comes back to the one person to one person level being hurt by someone else getting something for free.

 

Art

[Gerritt]

All ISP's will turn over any information to the authorities if you perpetrate a crime on the internet. That includes copy right infringement illegal up/down loading and other crimes that are defined by the governing legal system. If the law is blurry then they send you a notice if the law is concrete then you will get busted. Right now Canada is at the point of getting notices and eventually the laws will be changed so they can bust you.

For some people it is hard to be honest if no one is watching them for others it is easy to blur the line to make it fit their conscience and for a few your conscience can guide you to the right answer. Past injustices should never be used to justify future moral discrepancy's nor should crimes against faceless industries be thought of as uninjured victims. Eventually it comes back to the one person to one person level being hurt by someone else getting something for free.

 

Art

 

 

 

 

Art, Very well said.

 

Gerritt.

[majorlifts]

Well we could go on and on but really whats the point. Like one very good doctor said "everyone lies". So in essence everyone is guilty of something. Unfortunately that is human nature. Thats why we have Police and crime units to investigate fraud and illegal activity. Those who do will have to pay, and those who dont will have to pay. Cigarettes are legal here in canada, and while not everyone smokes them many pay for the damage it does. So while one commits a crime against humanity legally, many commit them illegally. So the fine line continues to draw dialog from the masses and the sun continues to shine on all, bad and good.

[Hellfish]

I must agree very articulate. I cant compare to the last 2 posts so i wont even try None the less ill prolly stop once i get warned with a 25,000 fine. Good luck to yall.

[Hookset]

O.K how bout this ? Have the record companies put songs on the net that you can buy for about 5 cents or a dime each song. They don't have to worry about production and distribution costs, they can stop whining about the money they lost and they would probably make millions. Make the terms of payment open to "paypal" etc. and make a good website that is easy to use. For a dime a song I'd be happy and would never "steal" again and they'd make a bundle. So why don't they ??? Because they are making so much dough that they don't give a damn. It's easier to sic their lawyers on the subject. I know stores selling music would be out of business but hey, the milkman doesn't deliver to my door anymore either. He sold the horse and got another job.

 

Rock On

[Castmaster]

If I had a million dollars.....Great thanks a lot now I can't get that tune out of my head.

 

Quick!!! Go download it before you forget!!!

[glen]

What about all the crap they put on my PC? I should be able to charge them for uploading.

[Pinch]

If I had a million dollars.....Great thanks a lot now I can't get that tune out of my head.

 

 

Arrrrrrrrrrghhhhhhh....now I cant either!!!!

 

But we would eat kraft dinner.....we'd just eat more......

[danc]

I've done my share of illegal downloading. But in some cases it helps the artist/producer to sell his or her product. Here's an example. A few times I've managed to catch a part of a documentary called "Winged Migration" on tv. It's an incredible film about the migration of various birds around the world. I'm thinking that I would like to see the entire film and perhaps purchase a copy. So, I downloaded the film and was so impressed that I bought my own copy off of EBay. Had I not seen the entire film on my download, I would not have bought a legal copy. Same goes for music. If I like it enough I'll go out and buy a copy.

 

By the way, if you have not seen Winged Migration, I highly recommend it.

 

:thumbsup_anim: from me.

[bigfish1965]

Okay let's remember a few things first.

Filesharing is not illegal. Not at all. Downloading a file is also not illegal.

When people say 'illegal' they think of Criminal Offenses. As long as you are not charging money, you are not doing anything criminal. Charging money for a copy of a song is piracy.

That being said, allowing your songs to be downloaded is a violation of the user agreement that is in place when you purchase or receive a CD or other forms of retail music.

This user agreement is a civil matter, not criminal. By downloading music you are not in violation of the user agreemnt because you have yet to enter into one.

Now for those screaming 'thief' and using the term 'criminal' and 'illegal' remember this...

It is the same violation as fielsharing if you do any of the following..

• Copy your CD to your hard drive
  
• Make an mp3 compilation of your favourite songs for your car
  
• Copy your songs onto your iPod
  
• Lend your CD to a friend
  

If you read the microscopic print, you will see that all of these actions fall under copying or redistributing and are subject to recourse via civil litigation.

Let's suppose you bought a car and the car maker said..You can never lend your car to another, let anyone else drive it or ever sell this car to another person...after all they have to sell cars too and if ou just let your friends use yours, how are the poor car companies going to survive?

The music industry talks out of both sides of their mouth. If they REALLY wanted people to refrain from filesharing, then they would do more in terms of DRM (digital rights management). Ripping a new DVD with the most current DRM is very difficult. Not impossible..just difficult. Many bands now actively encourage internt filesharing of their products. IF you play the game right it can actually make you alot of money.

I downloaded several songs from a band called Seven Nations. Never heard of them before someone mentioned them to me. After finding I thoroughly enjoy the band, I have purchased all their CD's, shirts, gone to see them perform in New York and Florida and started a website for their fan club.

If you play it right stuff like this doesn't cost you money.

Even software like Photshop only weakly protects their products from copy. They know that few if any people will pay $1,000 for the program without having a good long poke around with it.

Most Phtoshop legitimate owners started out with a cracked version.

 

Had I received one of these emails your damm right I would have been filing a complaint with the Privacy Commisioner. It is a huge violation to give out someone's email address especially from an ISP perspective considering most ISP emails contain at least part of the customers real name. Look up the PIPEDA laws in Canada..very strict. Canada has some of the strictest privacy laws on earth.

[John Bacon]

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.

 

Do you actually know what a deferred tax is? My guess is that you do not.

 

The government has a set of rules on how income taxes are calculated. The CICA handbook has a set of rules on how income is calculated for accounting purposes. These rules usually result in a different profit figures for accounting purposes than for tax purposes. Some of the differences are permanent, some are timing differences (i.e. and expense may be recorded in one for tax purposes, and a different year for accounting purposes). A deferred tax is the result of a timing difference that causes the current year's taxable profit to be lower than the current year's accounting profit. The bottom line is, these companies have already paid the tax required by law based on the rules set forth by the government. You cannot create a set of rules on how to calculated your company's tax payable and then tell them to pay additional taxes over and above this amount. I apologize if I appear to be hi-jacking this thread; the constant call for companies to pay their deferred taxes is a per peeve of mine.

[GbayGiant]

Great response Rick, with those examples you gave I guess 99% of us are pirates. Arrrghhh, we all got a case of the scurvy.

[John Bacon]

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

 

 

 

I strongly disagree with your statement that every free download takes money from the the artist. People who are heavy downloaders of music would not purchase all of those CD's if they could not download them; they would simply own fewer CD's. The same logic apply's to movies and software.

 

Many of these downloads, probably the vast majority, do not represent lost sales, they represent sales that would never have occured anyways. This is one of many factors that makes downloading completely different than breaking into someones home and stealing there personal belongings. A comparison that has been make on this thread.

 

Also, artists do recieve a royalty on blank CD's. So they have in effect been paid for downloads. They can't have it both ways; charge us a royalty and then say that we cannot download their music. This royalty is paid regardless of what the CD's are used for. I recently purchased a new computer, I burned several CD's to transfer files (mostly pictures that I took from my digital camera) to my new computer; musicians received a royalty on those CD's.

[jughead]

Okay let's remember a few things first.

 

Let's suppose you bought a car and the car maker said..You can never lend your car to another, let anyone else drive it or ever sell this car to another person...after all they have to sell cars too and if ou just let your friends use yours, how are the poor car companies going to survive?

 

I've heard this argument before and it is very flawed. The difference is there is only one car, ever. File sharing creates multi-duplicates that can go on endlessly. If you can magically duplicate your car so that thousands of people everywhere in the world can simultaneously use your car at the same time then your argument has merit. Otherwise, it doesn't apply.

 

As for citing bands like the Barenaked Ladies and Britney spears, that too is a flawed argument. The vast majority of people in the arts aren't that succesful. That logic is like saying because Prince William is rich all teenagers in England are millionaires.

 

You are right when you say downloading for personal use contravenes the same law but there is also the legal concept of what constitutes the spirit of the law. I have ripped most of my CD's for use on computers and my iPod but I don't post them and give access for others to take songs from my library. There is a difference.

 

Some bands and filmmakers support file sharing and make their stuff available. By all means, if the artist has given consent, download away. For those that haven't, you are violating their copyright status and that is illegal.

 

You do not have to be charging money to violate copyright law. If a person can demonstrate that your acts have hurt their business and had a negative financial impact then they do have grounds to file charges whether you made money of doing it or not.

Edited February 17, 2007 by jughead

[bigfish1965]

I've heard this argument before and it is very flawed. The difference is there is only one car, ever. File sharing creates multi-duplicates that can go on endlessly. If you can magically duplicate your car so that thousands of people everywhere in the world can simultaneously use your car at the same time then your argument has merit. Otherwise, it doesn't apply.

 

As for citing bands like the Barenaked Ladies and Britney spears, that too is a flawed argument. The vast majority of people in the arts aren't that succesful. That logic is like saying because Prince William is rich all teenagers in England are millionaires.

 

You are right when you say downloading for personal use contravenes the same law but there is also the legal concept of what constitutes the spirit of the law. I have ripped most of my CD's for use on computers and my iPod but I don't post them and give access for others to take songs from my library. There is a difference.

Some bands and filmmakers support file sharing and make their stuff available. By all means, if the artist has given consent, download away. For those that haven't, you are violating their copyright status and that is illegal.

 

You do not have to be charging money to violate copyright law. If a person can demonstrate that your acts have hurt their business and had a negative financial impact then they do have grounds to file charges whether you made money of doing it or not.

So now the basis of your argument rests on semantics. There is no degree of violation in the law. There is only guilty or not guilty. There is no difference at all in what you do and what file sharers do. The copyright forbids any copying or redistribution. The keyword is 'any'.

People who download are not breaking any laws. This is why the government is now considering creating laws. Had it already been illegal, there would be no need for it.

Record companies cannot 'file charges'. Charges only exist in criminal matters. The record companies may file a Civil Action in the US. To this end they have only sued SUPPLIERS not downloaders. That is simply because you cannot violate a copyright law by downloading, only by offering for download.

As has been pointed out, music companies and artists receive a piece of the pie in the surcharge added onto each blank CD and DVD sold in Canada. This is to offset losses perceived by record companies. To this end, they have already been compensated. To seek further remuneration is absurd. By accepting the cash in the first place, one would make a compelling argument that they have at least tacitly accepted file sharing.

The current action being taken by the record companies does not differentiate those who download music from the pro-file sharing artists versus the antis.

Lon ago I had to accept that the internet was essentially the wild west of the 21st Century. In order to protect work I do, I make it horribly difficult for anyone to copy or use something I don't want reused. I can't prevent it completely, but I can make it difficult. Instead of availing themselves of new and unseemly DRM tecchnology, the record companies have simply chosen to do nothing.

The exception is Sony who encrypted spyware into their CD's until it was discovered.

The offending spyware was attached to their CD's without notification to users and if uninstalled from your computer, rendered your CD player inoperable. It was a good beginning to DRM, but horrendously designed. It did prevent copying by most people (yes even to your iPod) but the program ran constantly without the users knowledge and even went so far as to make itself stealthed. This program also contained numerous security flaws that left your computer open to attack. There only solution to the problem was to either decompile the CD on an already infected computer and then copy it without the bad software or download the songs from the internet.

[jughead]

So now the basis of your argument rests on semantics. There is no degree of violation in the law. There is only guilty or not guilty. There is no difference at all in what you do and what file sharers do.

 

There is a difference, it isn't semantics and the law has many provisions, particularily civil law, where the spirit or intended purpose of the law provides latitude. If I purchase a CD or movie and make a copy for my own personal use I am not redistributing the work given that it is a very easy argument to make that you can't redistribute something you legally own to yourself.

 

Technically, if I use a PVR to record a football game and the next night gather with my buddies to watch it I have broken the law. The spirit of the law however protects me from legal action because it can be proven that I did not profit and did not hinder the NFL's ability to profit.

 

 

It should also be noted that not all artists receive a piece of the pie that results from surcharges.

 

The person who downloads is breaking the law. They aren't pursued criminally because copyright law is murky and it is very difficult for someone in one country to sue someone in another for downloading from a server that may be in a third country. It would also be prohibatively costly to try and charge individuals on a per case basis which is the only way they could do it. The go after those who offer the downloads because it is the only logical and reasonable route.