Canadian Judge rules online file-sharing LEGAL

[mabudonicus]

It's true, the decision came down thursday, under Canadian Law online music-sharing has been found to be legal.... I didn't grab a particular link, check it out... it's bound to cause quite a stink, I figure
There have been lots of things said on both sides of the argument, What do you think?????

[jjreason]

I'm surprised by this. I have partaken in file sharing numerous times, and always felt like I was getting away with something. The allure is grand, no doubts there, but the thought that we're keeping money from the rightful recipient in these cases (the music artist, software designer, whoever) isn't my favorite. I kind of thought the jury was back on this issue, after the whole Napster debacle of a couple of years ago, and that the verdict was "guilty".

[sith_killer_99]

Hmmm, I read somewhere on another forum that the music industry gets a small percentage from the sale of blank CDs, in Canada, this was done to off set the loss to the industry and as such file sharing was legal.

Though admittedly I never followed up, since I live in the States.

[2-1B]

does Canadian Law allow online porn-sharing ?

[DarthBrandon]

does Canadian Law allow online porn-sharing ?

Don't know enough about that one Caesar, I'll research that a little and get back to you. As for the percentage from the sale of blank CDs, in Canada, this is true sith_killer_99, we are already taxed for that. I don't feel bad about music sharing because it's no different than taking a blank tape back in the days without online sharing and filling it up with songs off the radio or from a friend’s collection. Music I'm all for that, but movies are a whole different ballgame IMO, especially when they are still playing in the theatres and showing up on Kazza at the same time. I think after something has had it's chance to make money at the box office, and it goes DVD or VHS, if people want to copy it or trade it, let them. For me I'd rather have an original copy of S.W. any day over a burnt copy, but hey that's just me. People listen to music everyday on the radio, they watch movies at their friend’s houses, so what's the difference if they share online, nothing IMO. What's next you can't listen to the radio or watch a movie at your buddy's house without paying someone? These artists who are crying hard times are the ones we watch on lifestyles of the rich and famous, and it sure doesn't look like their having hard times at all. (i.e. buying 50 pairs of underwear at $500.00 a pop, $100,000.00 dollar shopping sprees or driving the most sought after car around) One thing comes to mind and it's greed, they do not care for the general public and if you think they do then you've been duped. Any money they give to charities (ones they are told to by the P.R. guy) is a tax right off and it makes them look good in the public eye, nothing more. We are just mere mortals while they toil in things that only gods can imagine. They are there to make money and if they feel anyone is cutting their grass they want a piece whatever way they can get it. Sorry after a certain point enough is enough, I buy it if like and leave it if I don’t, if my friend gives me a copy of something I’ll listen to it or watch it and if I like it enough I’ll buy my own. File sharing has been around for years in one form or another and it won’t be stopped so they need to get over it. End of rant.

Peace

[mabudonicus]

Howdy Brandon , haven't crossed threads in a while...
I would echo your thoughts in a -ed voice
JJ- I thought of you first when I heard this, seeing as you actually are the law up here
And Caesar- sure, you just need a valid e-mail address and a credit card (to verify your age, of course) I'll mail you the links

Anyways, yeah, back to Brandon's post... it is hard to care too much about the industry and it's woes when the "pinnacle" of pop (thus "big money", both in sales and promotion) keeps sticking the bar in the mud with junk like American Idol....
Actual, bona-fide musical talent is now the domain of the shadowy "session musicians", many of the "names" which command the big money (I'm thinking specifically of say Britney Spears, sorry guys ) are just that; names, with images attached, with all of the work being done in promotion... Britney could be anyone, and ironically stuff like American Idol makes that clear.... I've seen bits of the show where people are told that "they are great but just don't have it", clearly the industry trying to indicate that certain people just are "pop stars" and it has nothing to do with their talents, which is made all too clear when you turn on the radio

When the show "Big Brother" was big, a guy on the German version was topping the German pop charts with stuff that his "character" was making on ths show...
There are tons of people doing what the guy was doing, but he was a "real" artist and was making real industry dollars... was he exceptionally skilled? not really, but he was "famous".... and since he was, he could sell stuff he cooked up on his PC at the going industry rate for new music...

Another reason for the high price of "entertainment" is to make a buffer against unsold units, especially if the only merit of agiven CD is based on how successful the marketing is.. I've noticed that actual "music sharing" is nowhere near like it used to be when I was younger, all of my friends and I (and we're mostly musicians, so I guess that could be a factor) were always trying to find the GREATEST ALBUM EVER, always grabbing new stuff and laying it on others (whether they liked it or not, gotta try it at least)
Nowadays I meet folks who purportedly like music, but only by one (usually real gimmicky) band.... sorta sad, it shows how good the industry has gotten with what it does (hint- it ain't selling great music)

Man, I was going to try and counter Brandon's rant, win some ya lose some
out

[Kidhuman]

Canada just got that much better. Free health care and free music.

[Exhaust Port]

Check this link out:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/6/36655.html

Two Harvard professors studied the file sharing issue and claim that it has no effect on CD sales. It takes about 5000 downloads to equal one less CD sold according to their research. That would account for 2 Million less CD's in 2002 sold BUT CD sales fell by 139 Million between 2000-2002. That just doesn't add up.

Perhaps the music industry has to start admitting that the economic downturn has slowed their sales. The first to go in tough times is entertainment $$ for the average consumer. I know that my CD/DVD purchases have slowed to a trickle over the last few years. I use to buy about 20-30 CD's a year but now I'm lucky to purchase 2.

[Kidhuman]

Bottom line is that music is not all that great nowadays. It is aimed at young kids who dont have the money to buy them.

[scruffziller]

Check this link out:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/6/36655.html

Two Harvard professors studied the file sharing issue and claim that it has no effect on CD sales. It takes about 5000 downloads to equal one less CD sold according to their research.

So basically the research indicates that most of the people downloading music for free instead of buying the CDs, would not have bought the CDs in the first place?

And........that file sharing has actually helped limit the fall of the business in that frame of time.