MUSIC DOWNLOADS still legal in Canada.

[Lenny]

A win for the consumer.

http://www.mytelus.com/music/article.do?pageID=home&articleID=1563050

[Surfer]

Lenny, I don't get it. Lets say you build a custom cabinet and it took about $200,000.00 to build, wouldn't you want to be paid for your work, or would you just give it away? Aren't musicians entitled to be paid for their work? By the way I need a new kitchen.

[Ed Donnelly]

Maybe this is one of the reasons,concert prices are getting out of hand. They have to make up lost profits from somewhere.......Ed

[harbormaster]

I am biting my tonque while typing this, but I have to state this....

Though I have been known to download a song or two, I know that its not exactly right. I guess its a form of protest for the faceless fatcat recording industry.

The musicians make only a small fraction of the profits generated by the music industry. This is amazing.

Here is an example of what I am talking about:
(published online by someone else)
A music industry case study

A look at a mythical rock band's earnings, with actual figures compiled from industry sources:
New York City's hottest new band is Grunthead, a four-piece hard rock group from Maspeth. Because they've got buzz, the band gets a 15% royalty rate, a few points above the usual amount for a new artist.

Its debut, "Gruntastic," goes gold – only 128 of more than 30,000 records reached that level in 2002.

The Gold Record Gross: 500,000 albums sell at $16.98 = $8,490,000 The Grunts' royalty is 15% of retail. That's $1,273,500.

But the Contract calls for "packaging deductions" of 25%, so the gross drops to $6,367,500. Then there's promotional albums and giveaways the labels give to wholesalers, retailers, radio and the press. That's a "free goods" charge of 15%, so the gross drops another to $5,094,000. So, the band's royalty is actually: $764,100. The record company keeps the packaging and "free goods" funds. After collecting a $9.99 wholesale price, it also reaps an additional $829,900. The $3,500,000 balance goes to retailers, assuming they sell the record for list price.

Because the band was hot, they got an advance from the record company of $300,000. They spent $200,000 of that recording the album, which included a $50,000 advance to the producer. They pocketed the remaining $100,000. Additionally, the label spent $100,000 making the band's first video, which got them played on MTV2. The band owes all of this money back to the label.

So the royalty drops to $364,100.

But the band's producer also earned a 4% royalty of $203,760, of which he already received $50,000. So the band has to pay him an additional $153,760, reducing their royalty to $210,340.

After pocketing $310,340 (which includes the remaining $100,000 of the advance), the band has to pay their manager 15%, or $46,551, and give 2% of the total deal, or $101,880, to the power lawyer who got them the deal in the first place. That takes the band down to $161,909.

That's not bad money, but it's split four ways, or $40,477.25 each, about the same as a city sanitation worker with two years' experience, without health benefits, vacation and retirement fund. But with, of course, groupies.

There is alot of really good musicians and music that do not get airplay because of similar kind of stuff happening in the radio industry. I'd kinda like to hear John ToTaro's take on this.

[Lenny]

I'd like to see a musician, ANY musician, have a chance at getting heard through the Cyber-waves and at that point, bypass a LOT of the cumbersome and profit eating baggage and have an opportunity to reach a planet with a keystroke.

At that point, I would not have a problem paying $.99 a song US$ for what I want to hear.

Scott, I too rarely do it, but it is a bigger fight behind the scenes (Corporate) than many of us realize I think.

[Fish boy]

just my $.02, and this is not a legal opinion, but I am pretty sure music downloading is not the issue the RIAA (or the CRIA) is bringing suit over. I beleive it is uploading; in essence taking a copywritten work and providing it to others free of charge without the copyright holders consent. It appears to be the giving, not the recieving that is at issue currently. The article posted above about ther CRIA also mentions upload not download as the basis for the legal action.

I also beleive musicians have a right to their $$$ as do the producers...etc. Where I vascialte somewhat is that I can hold my tape recorder up to the speaker in my house and record music and play it back when ever I want. This is free, and I am not subject to any legal action. If I wanted to, I could record it as a .wav or .mp3 file and burn it to a cd. Didn't I just do the same thing as downloading music for my own use? What is the difference if I get the music off the radio or internet. I understand the source on the other end is different (radio stations have agreements to allow broadcast, P2P sharing networks usually do not), but as far my culpability, what is the difference betwen the two?

Not advocating file sharing or taking a stand against it, just a little food for thought.

Fish

PS the canadian judge comparing it to photocopying copywritten works from a library is a pretty compelling argument.

[rayjay]

[QUOTE=Where I vascialte somewhat is that I can hold my tape recorder up to the speaker in my house and record music and play it back when ever I want. This is free, and I am not subject to any legal action. If I wanted to, I could record it as a .wav or .mp3 file and burn it to a cd. Didn't I just do the same thing as downloading music for my own use? [/QUOTE]


That was one of the problems with the cases prosecuted here in the US. Who they were prosecuting and for what. You can record it and use it for your own personal use provided you are not using it to generate any income or economic gain directly or indirectly. But when you (not the owner of the music) put it on the net for someone else to record it you are no longer using it for your own use as you allowing other people to use it and record it which also circumvents the music's sale by the owner of the music. If you copy a CD you bought for your own use, like on the boat or in the car, your are perfectly within your rights as you bought the rights to use it for your own non-economic use. If you give that copy to someone else, even as a gift, you have probably broken a law or a number of laws in most countries that support the copyright convention as you have effected an economic gain for you or someone else by not having to pay for the rights to use it and also effected someone else's economic loss by them not receiving their due payment for the rights to use the music.

I used to work for Marvel Comics many years ago as Spider-Man's and The Hulk's Auditor. I went out to make sure you were paying the right amount in royalties. So this is an area I am a bit familiar with. Beyond this, maybe there is a lawyer in our midst’s that can shed some additional light on this subject.

rayjay

[ToonaFish]

Um, isn't Fishboy a lawyer?

I've always argued the library precedent and feel that if the music industry was accustomed to writers' salaries, this would be a moot suit. They are creating music for the love of their art, right?


Bunches,

Celene "he's surely fond of bars, so I don't think he's been disbarred..."

[Lenny]

Uploading is a "term" I am not used to. By having music on your OWN 'puter for your own enjoyment, that you either bought and paid for or got through other means, doesn't mean you are "feeding" the WWW with illegal music. Accessing a P2P network or site, that allows others to see what you have occupying in your "shared files" area doesn't mean you are doing anything wrong in my way of thinking. The fact that you let someone take it from you, for no personal gain, doesn't seem to out of place either. I have pictures and ideas from everyone of you people due to the fact that it was offered up here on this site or on of its' links for free access.

...???...

[Surfer]

The problem is, somebody stole it from the musician, the musician did not offer it for free (unless it is from his own site I have one for my music, copy all you want) the site offering the download benefits from ads / a data base of addresses to sell ect. End result the musician gets screwed. No one cares if you copy from the radio, the frequency responce and dynamics are awful.

[Scott Heidt]

What this all boils down to, is that the music industry had taken advantage of consumers for so long with inflated prices and HUGE egos that they (the record companies) underestimated and took for granted the consumer and the power of file sharing. The product is a mass rebellion from the consumer, basically telling the record companies to shove it up their ass. I don;t think there is a single person that thinks that the musician doesn't deserve compensation. They work very hard.

The simple fix is to provide a product at a reasonable price in the form that the consumer wants. I would be happy to pay .99 a song from the net. The sticky situation comes from the legal battles with copyrights. To allow a company to provide the variety of music that you see with the file sharing software, you would be caught in a legal mediation with no end in sight. Sad but true.

The bright side is that things will change in time for the better. Let's not be judgemental of the people who share music (They play a part in causing change that otherwise would not have taken place)and let's not be stand offish to people who think it is not a good thing to do ( Sharing music does cut into sales that does affect the bottom line). The fact is that this was a good thing because it promoted things to change. In the end the consumer will get the choice they want and music at a resonable cost. Musicians in turn will most likely be able to get their music out without the record companies in some cases, and should make more money in the end with a massive customer base that will come from this change.

Just my two cents worth!


PS. Isn't this the DONZI Boards! Heheheheh!