A new group of Canadian music artists have banded to protect Canadian music and their fans.
Members include Barenaked Ladies, Avril Lavigne, Sarah McLachlan, Chantal Kreviazuk, Sum 41, Stars, Raine Maida (Our Lady Peace), Dave Bidini (Rheostatics), Billy Talent, John K. Samson (Weakerthans), Broken Social Scene, Sloan, Andrew Cash and Bob Wiseman (Co-founder Blue Rodeo).
The Montr?ɬ©al-based group had this to say in a policy paper released today:
Fans who share music are not thieves or pirates. Sharing music has been happening for decades. It is hypocritical for labels to sue fans for something that everyone in the music industry has done him or herself. New technologies may have changed the way that fans share music, but they have not changed the fact that sharing helps artists?¢‚Ǩ‚Ñ¢ careers.
I’m glad they’re artists and not lawyers, because clearly they don’t have a clue what makes someone a “thief” or “pirate.”
They also seem to think that it’s THEIR interests that copyright laws are protecting and that therefore their opinion is more important than the entities that buy their copyrights from them. If they had their way, apparently record companies would no longer be able to enforce the right to exclude others from copying copyrighted material. If that happened, then the companies would never buy anything from the artists in the first place. Then, rather than being rich whiners who criticize the law without understanding it, they’d just be poor troubadors singing for tips on street corners and never being able to sell a song to anyone, because they can just take it without buying.
Actually, they’re probably thinking that sharing/trading music gets their music heard by more people than otherwise, and therefore gets more people to their concerts, which is where they make all their money, anyway.
Yes, exactly. And it apparently doesn’t occur to them that others, who have already paid them for the copyrights in their creations, also have vital financial interests at stake. As long as the artists think THEY’RE benefiting, they don’t seem to care that the record companies are getting screwed.
“As long as the artists think THEY’RE benefiting, they don’t seem to care that the record companies are getting screwed.”
Hmmm, I highly doubt THAT is happening. Record companies do very very well.
If the artists are benefiting, the record companies are benefiting.
Even if nobody ever bought a single CD, record companies make back any investments they make in artists in residuals off of MTV, MuchMusic, TV commercials, and TV programming.
They do much better than break even currently – even with all the trading going on.
Oh yeah, I forgot radio in that list of residual profit makers…
The fact that record companies usually make money is beside the point. The fact that record companies may have sources of income other than CD sales is also beside the point. Record companies OWN the copyrights they buy. As the owners they have the right to exclude others from copying them. When people violate that right, and violate the law, by making unlawful copies, they harm the record companies. If this process ultimately benefits the artists, it still hurts the record companies. So it’s not true that if the artists benefit, the record companies benefit.
If you could produce convincing economic evidence to record companies showing that they would make more money by allowing copying, don’t you think the record companies would follow that course? They don’t follow the course because they, and all the economic and financial experts that advise them, don’t believe that copying will benefit them. It will harm them, the personal feelings of the artists notwithstanding.
Because after all, it’s all about making money, right?
The point these artists (and a couple of smaller record labels I know of) is that copying is part and parcel with the music experience.
If the whole distribution system wasn’t so incredibly driven by payola deals then artists would not have to go through the big companies and lose the rights to their material.
Artists would love to have an outlet for distribution which didn’t require their selling their souls to the record companies, but the sad reality is that if you ever want your material to reach a large audience, the artists have very few choices.
It’s funny how the smaller record companies, who ostensibly operate closer to the break-even point than the larger companies and with, therefore, more to lose, are some of the biggest proponents of file sharing and alternative distribution routes.
The whole music copyright issue is about maintaining the status quo; an oligopoly of large souless companies.
Rick said it.
In my younger years I contemplated sseriously pursuing a singing career and would have if being a wife and mum wasn’t a bigger draw. But the research I did then and discovered, was basically what Rick says.
When you engage in commerce, yes, it’s about money. Record companies buy copyrights so they can profit from them. They don’t buy them so they can teach the world to sing in perfect harmony, or so they can put daisies in everyone’s rifles. They also don’t buy them because they feel really altruistic and would like to help out a bunch of singers who, without them, would be panhandling. They buy them to make money. They have a legal right to try to make money with the copyrights they buy. They enforce their legal rights, and in your eyes, that makes them “soulless.”
Let’s just eliminate copyrights altogether and allow everyone to share as much as they want. Then there won’t be any record companies, and there won’t be any record deals for artists, and thre won’t be any recordings to share. A perfect world, right?
If you seriously believe that sharing benefits record companies, then small labels that allow more sharing will prosper more and big companies that suppress sharing will lose out and the market will punish and reward accordingly. So if the record companies are going to do worse by suppressing sharing, let them. If other record companies are going to do better by allowing sharing, let them. But let’s not tell copyright owners they don’t have a right to decide this question for themselves, or deny that breaking the law makes one a criminal.
If these artists really prefer to do business with record companies that allow sharing, they should do so. If they prefer to start their own record companies and allow sharing, they should do that.
First of all I don’t listen to any of the artists in the original post so they can bond together to ban fans all they want and it won’t affect me.
Secondly, if artists would make an entire album that I could like then I would be more then happy to buy their cd’s. I refuse to spend 25 bucks or more on a cd that ends up only having 3-4 really good songs on it.
If the artists are going to start banning this sharing then the actors will have to do the same for their fans that download movies off the net. No matter what they think they can control, the bottom line is people will do what they can to get the most music/entertainment/movie for the least amount of movies. There is no such thing as a fool proof method to stop “stealing” music or movies. There will always be someone smarter and faster to hack through and system anyone else puts u.
Sally, it’s not the artists who are going to “start banning.” It’s the artists who are telling the record companies they should stop trying to protect their own financial interests, because the artists may benefit if they stop.
oops I thank you ltbugaf for correcting me. I did indeed misread the post. So if the artists have that much problem with their labels just change lables …sounds pretty simple to me. The record companies can’t ban something the artists don’t agree to. And if it is in their contract then they should have read their contracts better before they signed it.
Well, it’s not quite that simple Mum. Theey often have contracts they are tied into for a certain period of time. When they become more estabnlished and gain more control over their careers it’s easier to change labels or create their own. Besides that they are willing to signa little too much away initially just to get a chance.
What if a choir director takes a piece of music, makes copies of it and gives it to the choir members to sing, should the church pay royalities to the author of the music?
What if after hearing the song, several people who heard the song go to Desert Book and purchase cd’s, would this change things? Should the church still pay for the unlicensed use of the song?
There are other items that can fit into this same type of situtation. For example, I expect you may have seen the receipe for Neiman Marcus cookies. Why buy them when you can now make them? Suppose you were in a Neiman Marcus store, would you be tempted to buy the Neiman Marcus cookie just to see if yours tasted the same? Would you have even known about their cookie with the illegal receipe?
The bands – is this a way for people to know about them?
If you were on a jury – how would you vote?
“and thre [sic] won’t be any recordings to share. A perfect world, right?”
Wrong.
There are thousands of non-record company recordings being created yearly.
Artists can support themselves (and are often forced to) by touring.
The copyright and sale of their recordings is mostly profit for the record company anyway.
The problem is that record companies are so incestuously linked to commercial radio, that artists struggle to gain recognition without the aid of these companies.
It’s a clear choice between artistic integrity and whoring yourself out in order to get *something* heard by the masses.
These poor starting bands are often forced to sign over rights to creations just to get in the door. It’s a clear case of the companies taking advantage of the struggling artist.
Not that all performers feel this way. Many performers have bought into the whole corporate infrastructure of the music industry and have received plenty of compensation for it.
There’s nothing wrong with music sharing. Artists are looking to share their music. That’s why they perform it. The name of the game is to get people to listen to your creations – music sharing is just one more way to do it.
No songwriter can ever make a cent for writing a song unless someone is required to pay for the privilege of using his song. If copyright protections are taken away, then anyone who wants to can take the song without paying for it.
“There are thousands of non-record company recordings being created yearly.”
Yes. Many of them are illegal. That’s why the people who own the copyright to the originals try to enforce their rights.
“Artists can support themselves (and are often forced to) by touring.”
And if there were not copyright protections, then touring is the ONLY way they could EVER make money. And anyone who wanted to could come in and record the concerts, then sell DVDs and pay the artists nothing.
“Artists are looking to share their music. That’s why they perform it.” If they’re just looking to SHARE it, then they can sing for free. However, I strongly suspect most of them want to do more than share. Most of them want to be PAID for their creations. And without copyrights, they never will be.
I’m also still waiting for someone to explain how breaking the law makes someone “not a criminal.”
Newsflash:
It’s not all about making money for many of the bands/performers.
It’s about being heard.
When was the last time you heard someone say,”I want to be rich when I grow up, so I’m going to be a musician”?
It’s about the music.
FYI, the thousands of recordings I’m talking about are not illegal. They are the product of small studios and home studios. Places when creativity reigns and artistic integrity is the order of the day.
Your strong suspicions are misguided; most musicians and singers perform because they’re artists and enjoy it. They’d be doing it if they never got paid.
Also, just in case you didn’t know, file sharing is *not* illegal in Canada, so nobody is breaking any laws north of the 49.
What Rick said. File sharing is legal in Canada.
And being a singer myself, I can personally attest to this. Yes, it is nice to make money with your music, but the primary focus for most (not all, I am sure), is being able to share your music. It truly is.
“Most musicians and singers perform because they’re artists and enjoy it.”
Then they should go and hold free concerts or sing on street corners, rather than make record deals. Seeking record contracts is not “about the music.” It’s about getting a shot at fame and money. And having made a contract with a record company, they shouldn’t try to suppress the company’s right to make money for itself.
Any musician who would be doing it even if he never got paid should go ahead and do it without getting paid. If, on the other hand, they are also seeking money, they shouldn’t vilify the people who are doing the same. Music is a product. You can give it away or you can sell it. The musicians in this coalition aren’t giving it away; they’re selling it, and so are the big, bad, soulless record companies that make their careers possible.
“Seeking record contracts is not ‘about the music.'”
It is if you think having a contract would offer better distribution of your music.
Kim, show me just ONE record contract by ANY of the artists mentioned above that isn’t trying to make money for the performers.
If someone isn’t out to make money and just wants to share the beauty of his creation, then all he has to do is waive his copyrights and dedicate the work to the public domain. Then, if they want, the record companies can pick it up for free and sell cds by the millions.
The singer that wants maximum sharing can put his own performances on the web and invite any and all to share them for free. Some do this.
Show me just ONE record contract by ANY of the artists mentioned above that is trying to make money for the performers.
“The singer that wants maximum sharing can put his own performances on the web and invite any and all to share them for free.”
How does that maximise sharing more so than advertising, distributing to radio stations and music video stations, and organising concerts?
EVERY one of them calls for a portion of the record sales to go to the performers. That’s why Sony is being sued over the question of which percentage of profits is to be paid to the artists. There would be no contracts if the artists weren’t trying to be paid.
But apparently when a performer wants to be paid, that’s good, and when a businessman wants to be paid, that’s evil.
Kim, you already showed us a contract that tries to make money for the performers, in your “Speaking of Stealing Music” post.
ltbugaf
Check out:
http://www.worldonfire.ca/
It’s not all about money
Sorry, I declined to install the “Active X” control on my computer for the purpose of checking out the “world on fire” site.
However, the fact that someone has chosen to distribute some music in a way that isn’t about money is beside the point. Songwriters and performers sell or license their copyrights to record companies because they want the record companies to pay them. Otherwise they would give away the copyrights, rather than sell them. Music distribution systems exist because there are companies that engage in the commerce of distrubuting music. But there are alternatives. If musicians really don’t want money, they can offer their compositions and their performances (both of which have copyright protection unless it’s waived) for free.
In #29, Kim asks how such systems do more to maximize distribution than the commercial means that record companies engage in. The short answer is that advertising, distributing to radio stations and music video stations, and organizing concerts, all cost a lot of money, whereas unrestricted file sharing on the web is virtually free. The reason record companies and performers advertise, distribute and organize concerts is that they want to make money. If unrestricted file sharing were legal, then record companies would cease engaging in advertising and distribution. They would also cease to exist.
Of course, we haven’t even taken into account the fact that recording technologies have come into existence in the first place because people wanted to make money. There would be no CDs, no MP3s, not even any LPs, without the financial incentives created by intellectual property protection. You can bet your Avril Lavigne collection that Thomas Edison’s labs would never have produced a phonograph without the hope of making money off the invention.
“I declined to install the “Active X†control on my computer for the purpose of checking out the “world on fire†site.”
I used Firefox just fine to view it, and it doesn’t even use Active X.
“The short answer is that advertising, distributing to radio stations and music video stations, and organizing concerts, all cost a lot of money, whereas unrestricted file sharing on the web is virtually free.”
I asked how it maximises distribution, not how it maximises the revenue to profit ratio.
“I used Firefox just fine to view it, and it doesn’t even use Active X.”
Bully for you.
“I asked how it maximises distribution, not how it maximises the revenue to profit ratio.”
It maximizes distribution because anyone can have it, any time, virtually for free. And no one is going to use the other systems without expecting to be paid for it, and therefore charging consumers.
“It maximizes distribution because anyone can have it, any time, virtually for free. And no one is going to use the other systems without expecting to be paid for it, and therefore charging consumers.”
Right, just like how Linux is so unpopular, right?
Really? I thought Linux was used by a lot of people. And the makers of Linux are free to distribute their product for nothing if they so choose. The makers of Microsoft Windows are also free to charge for access to their product.
This means, of course, that Linux is virtuous and Microsoft is soulless, right?
It means that free distribution does not always amount to maximising distribution.
Maybe that’s because the people who have something that very large numbers of people will want have a tendency to charge for it, rather than give it away. That way, they can make money—the soulless jerks!
I keep hearing that for the musicians, it’s not all about the money. But it’s not the musicians’ rights that are being violated when people make illegal copies of intellectual products such as song recordings. It’s the rights of the companies that sell those recordings. They make their money (and pay their mortgages and buy their groceries and send their kids to college) by paying musicians for their songs and performances, turning them into recordings, and selling them at what they hope will be a profit. Then the musicians say, “WE don’t mind if people don’t pay the record company. Shame on you, you mean old record company!” But it doesn’t really matter much whether the musicians mind. Their interests and their rights are usually not the ones being violated by so-called “sharing.”
Now, Rick has raised the issue of whether the musicians are having their interests violated by the negotiating tactics of record companies. That’s a question worth asking and trying to answer. But it has little or no relevance to the issue of illegal copying. In the main, the artists aren’t the ones being harmed—directly, at any rate—by “sharing.” In some cases, they may benefit from it—to the detriment of record companies. So it’s not terribly surprising that they have few objections to sharing. They don’t mind watching someone else’s rights violated, while their own financial interests are sometimes furthered.
Once again file sharing or “illegal copying” as you call it is not illegal in Canada.
What are the artists protesting in their policy paper? United States law?
yes
In which case, the term “illegal copying” is absolutely accurate.
… not if they’re copying it in Canada.
Well, Rick, as near as I can tell, the issue being raised in the position paper is that of suing and prosecuting copiers in the US. So once again, you’re wasting your time trying to portray the term “illegal copying” as inaccurate.
Ummmm…
Did you actually read the paper?
It’s completely about *possible* Canadian reforms to copyright law, and the entire paper is slanted to a Canadian point of view.
Rick, previously you said the artists were protesting United States law, and now you tell me they’re looking to reform Canadian law. You said that “sharing” isn’t illegal in Canada, but you also say that the coalition wants to reform the Canadian law so that fans won’t be persecuted for sharing. I’m sure you can see why I’m a bit confused. Are they trying to reform US law, or Candian law? If “sharing” is already legal in Canada, then why are they arguing that it should be made legal?
I scanned the position paper and read sections, but didn’t read it in its entirety.