[bryguy]

Just came across http://www.musiccreators.ca/ which I personally found interesting. It'll be interesting to see what becomes of it and if it gains popularity with other high-profile Canadian artists (ie: The Hip).
Bryan

[scottitude]

I read about this yesterday and think it's cool as hell. I'm not getting why The Hip aren't already involved, though. I PM'd MAv for some insight but haven't heard from him yet.

The CCMC is a prime example of why I prefer Canadian artists.

[chris]

Although it might be a good idea.... it's an odd first post for someone to make.

[skippy the wonder dog]

Actually, I can't support this group. The reason is right here:
"The government should repeal provisions of the Copyright Act that allow labels to unfairly punish fans who share music for non-commercial purposes with statutory damages of $500 to $20,000 per song."

In fact, the provisions in question do not allow labels to punish fans who share music, with damages of $500 to $20,000 per song.

The allow copyright owners, in general, to sue infringers, also in general. There is no distinction between commercial and non-commercial infringements, for a simple reason: a non-commercial infringement can be as financially damaging to the copyright holder, or more so, than a commercial one. The provision for statutory damages is the only thing that gives copyright owners real power to enforce their rights, as actual damages may be difficult to determine.

So the CMCC, which like most participants in the copyright debate has its myopic and blinkered gaze firmly fixed on the mp3, proposes to remove the only real protection that Canadian writers, photographers, songwriters, and other artists have against infringement.

Sorry, but I'm not okay with that. I don't condone what the record companies are up to, but I'm not in favour of throwing out protections enjoyed by artists outside the music business simply so that BNL and Sarah McLachlan can pander to their fans -- which is exactly what's going on here.

[tommygunn]

Just came across http://www.musiccreators.ca/ which I personally found interesting. It'll be interesting to see what becomes of it and if it gains popularity with other high-profile Canadian artists (ie: The Hip).
Bryan

And you wouldn't have anything to do with that cause, would you?
'Just came across..' :roll:

[VioletlightHeron]

Skippy, can you explain the reasoning behind your arguement? In terms of letting fans download songs for their own personal use, where is the damage implied? Clearly, the damage to the artist would be shown if the fan downloads entire albums without any intent of going out and purchasing the album or doing something like ripping a LiveDownloads show and putting it on the internet, but what about the music lover who wants to give a song or two a listen before making a purchase?

There are bands out there where I will go out and buy the album with no questions asked (ie Hip, Sam Roberts or some of my other favorite groups) but in a situation where I hear about a new band from a friend or acquaintance, I'd like to know what they sound like before buying one of their albums. Am I damaging them by downloading one or two songs to get a feel for what kind of music they put out? I don't feel like I am.

[skippy the wonder dog]

My concern is with the impact of their proposal outside the music biz.

I have no problem with music fans downloading music for the reasons you describe -- sounds perfectly reasonable to me.

But that's not what the CMCC is proposing to protect. They're proposing to overturn the statutory damages provision in the copyright act, or to neuter it. That's going to have serious repercussions outside the music biz.

[bryguy]

it's an odd first post for someone to make

And you wouldn't have anything to do with that cause, would you?

Apparently as a first time poster I should have created a 'newbie' thread asking where TTH got their name and what it meant. If anyone feels that neccessary let me know and there's a ton of newbie questions I can ask. However, as a long time TTH fan who knows all that stuff I figured I'd go straight into a meaningful discussion. My bad.

I am in no way associated with the group in question, nor would that have any bearing. Well I guess that's not true since I am a fan of music and I gravitate to their particular myopic view over that of the various *IAAs. I only bring up this topic here because it was brought to my attention by a site I more frequently visit: http://www.slashdot.org. Reading Slashdot's discussion brought about a little bit of national pride and I got to thinking what the reaction to this group would be by other Canadian artists and fans. Given my devotion to TTH I was then brought to ponder the stance of TTH and their fans in particular. Since I've never posted here before I was forced to make it my first post. If the admins want to make this my 534th post so as to lend it credibility then they have my blessing.

Bryan

[bryguy]

But that's not what the CMCC is proposing to protect. They're proposing to overturn the statutory damages provision in the copyright act, or to neuter it. That's going to have serious repercussions outside the music biz.

Actually in their very general statement which you posted above they say very specifically "fans who share music" which restricts their interest to music. They seem to be restricting their focus on music thus restricitng their effect outside of the music biz.

[chris]

it's an odd first post for someone to make

And you wouldn't have anything to do with that cause, would you?

Apparently as a first time poster I should have created a 'newbie' thread asking where TTH got their name and what it meant. If anyone feels that neccessary let me know and there's a ton of newbie questions I can ask. However, as a long time TTH fan who knows all that stuff I figured I'd go straight into a meaningful discussion. My bad.

I am in no way associated with the group in question, nor would that have any bearing. Well I guess that's not true since I am a fan of music and I gravitate to their particular myopic view over that of the various *IAAs. I only bring up this topic here because it was brought to my attention by a site I more frequently visit: http://www.slashdot.org. Reading Slashdot's discussion brought about a little bit of national pride and I got to thinking what the reaction to this group would be by other Canadian artists and fans. Given my devotion to TTH I was then brought to ponder the stance of TTH and their fans in particular. Since I've never posted here before I was forced to make it my first post. If the admins want to make this my 534th post so as to lend it credibility then they have my blessing.

Bryan

You elected to only copy part of my post...

My point is just that people rarely walk into a room and start a discussion with a bunch of strangers. A common practice is to introduce yourself before you launch into a discussion. Throw into the mix that posts like your are commonly spam and our questions are fair game.

But if you're the real deal, welcome. Have fun!

[skippy the wonder dog]

But that's not what the CMCC is proposing to protect. They're proposing to overturn the statutory damages provision in the copyright act, or to neuter it. That's going to have serious repercussions outside the music biz.

Actually in their very general statement which you posted above they say very specifically "fans who share music" which restricts their interest to music. They seem to be restricting their focus on music thus restricitng their effect outside of the music biz.

Sorry, but you're wrong on the facts there.

They are calling for certain provisions of the law to be repealed, provisions that in effect allow for actions against fans who download music. They are not calling for an exception for music downloading. Their statement is not "very general." It calls for the repeal of a specific subsection of the Act. Read it again:
"The government should repeal provisions of the Copyright Act that allow labels to unfairly punish fans who share music for non-commercial purposes with statutory damages of $500 to $20,000 per song."

The provisions in question are provided by subsection 38(1) of the Act:
Subject to this section, a copyright owner may elect, at any time before final judgment is rendered, to recover, instead of damages and profits referred to in subsection 35(1), an award of statutory damages for all infringements involved in the proceedings, with respect to any one work or other subject-matter, for which any one infringer is liable individually, or for which any two or more infringers are liable jointly and severally, in a sum of not less than $500 or more than $20,000 as the court considers just.

No specific reference to music there. Repeal of this subsection, which is one of the group's specified aims, would certainly affect creators outside the music biz.

In particular, the statutory damages are most useful to the little guy -- to independent writers and photographers whose works, individually, are not valuable enough to make a lawsuit for actual damages worthwhile. Statutory damages provide the big stick that allows them to protect themselves -- they are the only real protection the Copyright Act offers to the little guy.

So this change would be most harmful to those who have the least clout.

[googolplex]

I don't think this kind of thing would really count as spam anyway since it's such a damn good cause. The Hip should definately get in ont his movement and help get the power back to the artists instead of having it be hoarded by foreign record company interests who screw over both artists and fans/customers. This is excellent and should make a big difference because as the government looks at updating copyright legislation there is now a new voice to listen to with artists and our interests in mind.

Also check out Michael Geist's thoughts on it:

<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://michaelgeist.ca/component/option,com_content/task,view/id,1222/Itemid,85/nsub,/">http://michaelgeist.ca/component/option ... ,85/nsub,/</a><!-- m -->

[skippy the wonder dog]

Just one thing, another serious point of confusion on this issue: the fact that record companies screw artists has nothing to do with copyright.

In fact, absent strong copyright protections, artists get screwed worse.

The problem between artists and record companies is market-driven, based on an oversupply of aspiring rock stars. The record companies have the power not because of copyright laws, but because they control the means of distribution and promotion. You want to make it big, you have to sign their deal, on their terms, or they go on to the next act.

The meaningful way to fix that may be to strengthen copyright provisions, by strengthening the artists' moral rights -- the rights that can't be signed away.

[VioletlightHeron]

A fair point with your comments on monetary damages helping to protect the little guy, Skippy. I seem to remember an article about the song The Lion Sleeps Tonight with the heirs of the original artist finally winning their case in court after a long time of getting screwed around by the record company. If I remember correctly, the group that helped popularize the song got little in terms of payment while the record company raked in the dough.

[googolplex]

Just one thing, another serious point of confusion on this issue: the fact that record companies screw artists has nothing to do with copyright.

In fact, absent strong copyright protections, artists get screwed worse.

The problem between artists and record companies is market-driven, based on an oversupply of aspiring rock stars. The record companies have the power not because of copyright laws, but because they control the means of distribution and promotion. You want to make it big, you have to sign their deal, on their terms, or they go on to the next act.

The meaningful way to fix that may be to strengthen copyright provisions, by strengthening the artists' moral rights -- the rights that can't be signed away.

I don't think this argument holds water, because quite frankly the music industry doesn't need the big record labels anymore. Witness The Arcade Fire, Broken Social Scene and practically every other Canadian band now that is doing well and is worth anything. I think the point is that we don't have to rely on record companies anymore to rule the music industry so why are we letting them dictate our copyright laws?

My point with bringing up the fact that the record companies screw the artists is that they pretend that they're coming from some point of moral authority by representing the artists lobbying for draconian copyright law when in reality they aren't protecting the artists but are just looking out for their shareholders. This is even more the case when these big record companies aren't even representing Canadian artists, but rather American interests.