The federal court ruled against the Canadian recording industry's bid to force Internet service providers to disclose the identities of people who make music available online. Here's reaction from North American-based web forums: - "Good for Canada! I don't really think it's an ISP's business to get involved in civil matters between outsiders and their clients."

-- username: Shakira

- "I think I know what country I'll go to college in now." -- username: danhm

- "Nice to see privacy winning one for a change. Now if we can get the U.S. Supreme Court to rule the same way. After all, they've been using foreign court rulings more and more recently."

-- username: Sharp'r

- "Wow! I can get married and trade music files?????? WOOOT! I'm moving to Canada!"

-- username: gay married music pirates

- "I was hoping to get sued in Canada instead of the States. After the exchange rate, I was hoping to pay about $.78 per song."

-- username: neiffer

- "I'm truly proud to be Canadian today. Oh, except for that tax on (blank CDs, DVDs, VHS and cassette tapes) and Celine Dion. Yeah, sorry about that."

-- username: ferratus

- "I can't wait to go home and download some more Gordon Lightfoot and Anne Murray."

-- username: rjelks

I guess theft of intellectual property is tolerated, and in fact encouraged in Canada then!?
Too bad, as its a very short sighted policy in my opinion.
What's even worse is the list of reactions from people with apparently no regard for the rights of the artists, or for the property of others!

Date?????

Or - is this a double- bluff?

Nope it's not a joke... http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/Con...=1080732966812

In this instance it's not about theft of intellectual property, but about privacy. They were trying to FORCE internet providers to turn over confidential private information. Some of us would like to see privacy take precedence over corporate music industry desires.

quote:Originally posted by shustad:
I guess theft of intellectual property is tolerated, and in fact encouraged in Canada then!?
Too bad, as its a very short sighted policy in my opinion.
What's even worse is the list of reactions from people with apparently no regard for the rights of the artists, or for the property of others!



------------------
Born once - Got it right the first time. )O(

Most people probably won't believe this,
but I feel I'm doing the industry a favour by downloading music. I download a lot of music, including GL music. The reason I
do this is to simply test music. If I like it, I buy it. If a new song comes out
that I've heard good things about, I'll
download it and if I like it, I'll buy it.
Lets face it, no matter how high-quality your
audio equipment and computer may be, you
can not capture the true quality of a song via MP3. I know there is a lot of music being
stolen out there,and its WRONG. I'm not
sure the artists are going poor though.
I sincerely believe that there will always be a demand for quality albums and the worse
case scenario might be millions of units
being sold instead of tens of millions of
units being sold. As for the privacy issue,
one's personal privacy should always come
before big business or government interest.
Sony makes records, government taxes the sales, Sony makes blank cd's,government taxes
the sales. Hmm.

Sort of like buying a paperback and then passing it on or leaving it behind in a waiting room, airport, bus station etc. for somebody else to read. One purchase, many readers. The intellectual property has been spread around, even if the readers don't keep the physical book. I don't think most musicians, anyway, make their money off record sales but concerts and personal appearances (and for a chosen few maybe licensing a song for an ad).

I believe you have hit the nail on the head. The artists make more money touring as a rule. The only one that DEPENDS on music sales to make a living are the labels.

So how come no one is policing xerox machines? If one had the patience and the coins they could copy a whole book and deprive some author of a book sale? The answer; the book industry isn't run by the kind of people that run the major labels.

quote:Originally posted by Auburn Annie:
Sort of like buying a paperback and then passing it on or leaving it behind in a waiting room, airport, bus station etc. for somebody else to read. One purchase, many readers. The intellectual property has been spread around, even if the readers don't keep the physical book. I don't think most musicians, anyway, make their money off record sales but concerts and personal appearances (and for a chosen few maybe licensing a song for an ad).



------------------
Born once - Got it right the first time. )O(

So if someone breaks into my home and attempts to steal my GL collection my neighbors shouldn't tell the constables who they saw ? You wouldn't want his privacy violated. Or the local crack cocaine dealer (provider ?) should claim a right to privacy. Stealing from the rich or poor is a crime however you choose to rationalize it. But in my example the point is moot, know what I mean ? LOL

Bill http://www.corfid.com/ubb/smile.gif

quote:Originally posted by violet Blue Horse:
I
So how come no one is policing xerox machines? If one had the patience and the coins they could copy a whole book and deprive some author of a book sale? The answer; the book industry isn't run by the kind of people that run the major labels.



Believe it or not, somebody is, sort of - the Copyright Clearance Center has set themselves up (for an exorbitant fee, BTW) as the intermediary between institutions and publishers mostly in the area of article copying. Librarians have a legal obligation to ensure that "the rule of five" is adhered to in their facility, as least as far as staff copying is concerned. What patrons do on their own is their look-out, which is why you may see the Title 17 warning posted by copy machines. The 'rule of five' limits copying from any journal title, not just one issue, to no more than five copies within the most recent five years, with certain exceptions: one-time classroom use of multiple copies [though most places put one copy on reserve for everybody to use], a replacement copy for missing pages of an issue you already own, a copy for personal use (as opposed to making copies for resale) and a few other I've forgotten.

Our hospital was approached by CCC to buy into their licensing program, for which they would charge us based not on the number of copies made per year but on the number of employees, which is nuts since most employees didn't make copies of anything. The license would have run somewhere around $100,000 per year, but since we routinely lent the physical copy of the journal to the doctors/nurses instead of making copies of articles, and otherwise followed all the interlibrary loan restrictions regarding copies (and had three years' worth of records to prove it) we passed on the 'offer.'

quote:Originally posted by BILLW:
So if someone breaks into my home and attempts to steal my GL collection my neighbors shouldn't tell the constables who they saw ? You wouldn't want his privacy violated. Or the local crack cocaine dealer (provider ?) should claim a right to privacy. Stealing from the rich or poor is a crime however you choose to rationalize it. But in my example the point is moot, know what I mean ? LOL

Bill http://www.corfid.com/ubb/smile.gif


"Attempts" to steal? LOL. Bill, sounds to me
your not letting go of that GL collection
with out a fight! I love it!

Later,
Doug

Doug,

You picked up on that one. I woke up cranky this morning but I'm over it. But yes, my GL collection is "protected", LOL.

Bill http://www.corfid.com/ubb/smile.gif

For the record, file sharing hurts creators, and regular people whose livelyhood relies on developing artist. In the past year about 30 people I know personally who have lost their jobs, all genuine music lovers. Canada needs to pass WIPO treaty in Canada, which will clarify digital copyright, as soon as possible. Artists and songwriters signed to labels like ours get the majority of the revenues from paid digital downloads. Thanks to those that are helping promote 'Harmony'. In stores May 11.

geoff,

Well said. Thanks for the professional input. In my life I do give family and friends a fair bit of chicken but I pay for it first myself, LOL. Once they get a taste...

Bill http://www.corfid.com/ubb/smile.gif

quote:Originally posted by geoff@linusmedia.net:
. Thanks to those that are helping promote 'Harmony'. In stores May 11.[/B]

Geoff, is there any hope of 'Harmony' being released in the UK?