Comments on: Three Strikes…unintended consequences for Canadians?

By: government grants

government grants — Tue, 16 Mar 2010 14:36:26 +0000

well if they do it they will surely pay the price

By: Alberta Business Plans

Alberta Business Plans — Thu, 11 Mar 2010 13:00:22 +0000

this is such an alrming stage i think someone should do something to prevent it

By: Gerald

Gerald — Tue, 02 Feb 2010 21:43:22 +0000

The making of music for profit is nothing new, but mass proliferation of personal -and now portable- music players for playback pleasure is. We have changed the variables of the industry to the extent that it is time to think of new ways to profit from it rather than the direct sales of individual songs. It’s no ones fault but it’s time.

By: George Geczy

George Geczy — Tue, 02 Feb 2010 17:01:47 +0000

What the media industries continue to fail to understand is that it isn’t ‘illegal sharing’ that is reducing their revenues so much as a complete shift in how media is produced, published and consumed. They also display an incredible lack of knowledge about their own customers, often penalizing their very best customers with their policies.

The record industry plan was to migrate everyone away from singles and less expensive LPs to more expensive CDs… moving back to singles distributed as individual files was against this roadmap, so they have fought it wherever possible. Imagine if they started selling $0.99 songs without DRM on the internet in 1999 (everything, new and backlist) – Napster would have never gained traction, and illegal file sharing would be a minor issue.

While exceptions always exist, many surveys and reports have also shown that high volume ‘illegal’ file sharers often are also the greatest purchasers of CD and DVD media.

ACTA is attempting to codify certain business models that not only make minimal sense today, but will be made even more outdated in the future. This needs to be fought, and public debate (aka transparency) is the only way to fight it.

By: Mark

Mark — Tue, 02 Feb 2010 00:26:20 +0000

Just because the recording industry *says* it’s file sharing that’s breaking their business model, doesn’t mean it is.

The last two years running, the top earning movies, the Dark Knight and Star Trek, were supposedly also the ‘most pirated’. Hmm. Doesn’t seem to be hurting their bottom line very much.

The recording industry has been whining about losing money ever since the dawn of radio, and probably before that. Tell them to STFU, legislate network neutrality, and be done with it. And put an end to the damned recordable media levy while you’re at it.

By: Dave

Dave — Mon, 01 Feb 2010 23:54:12 +0000

Why don’t we just abolish Intellectual Property! End the monopoly. The fashion industry deals with knockoffs (piracy) all the time. They survive by creating brand image and good customer support. Using the government to coerce or force people to buy your (old) media won’t win the consumer over.

Why don’t record companies offer mass licensing and their entire library at the touch of my fingers? Perhaps I will buy on volume!

By: Ted

Ted — Mon, 01 Feb 2010 17:49:07 +0000

A couple of points:
Given the high quality of media distributed over the internet for free, the only real value that someone selling the product can offer is the reward of having monetarily supported its production. One might argue that if it such a reward system were not sufficiently powerful, the music industry would have died out in the 80’s with the advent of dual cassette decks. In any case it’s not clear that $100 million is a significant amount of money for the recording industry — what percentage of total revenue does this represent?
An interesting aspect of filesharing is that titles need to hit a critical mass of popularity (and sales) before they are widely available via file sharing. So the loss of revenue tends strongly toward titles which are already profitable, allowing new or unknown artists to receive proportionately more income. This does not strike me as undesirable; it would seem to encourage record labels to expand their rosters and make it easier for more artists to achieve success, by borrowing Robin-Hood-style from the more profitable ones. Certainly the Nickelbacks and Avril Lavignes of the recording industry are not, barring unfortunate spending problems, in need of revenue.
Also I expect that ISP’s would stand to be able to reduce costs as a result of such a policy, due to a decrease in bandwidth. I’d like to see a projection of these numbers, as well as an estimation of the cost of enacting the three strikes system. It’s worth noting that unsavoury ISPs could simply issue strikes based on bandwidth utilization in order to save money. What is the proposed appeals process for the accused?

By: Scott Walsh

Scott Walsh — Mon, 01 Feb 2010 16:31:35 +0000

“…claims file sharing in Canada costs the industry $100 million annually, and the RCMP has stated that they are powerless to stop it.”

How much revenue has been generated by the blank media levy ($0.29 per CD-R regardless of use)? I suggest that the numbers be corrected to reflect the income generated by the levy.

You can’t tax an illegal act, and the media levy essentially legalizes private copying.

Also, labels owe artists some cash for the whole “pending list” scam, so who are they to advocate for “the rights of the artists”?

By: Richard Westgate

Richard Westgate — Mon, 01 Feb 2010 16:13:41 +0000

Well of course you can compete with free! Just provide the best service, the most convenient service, the most value added service, so that no-one will want to bother with the inferior product they can get for free.

By: Steve Hannah

Steve Hannah — Mon, 01 Feb 2010 16:06:19 +0000

[quote]The industry is trying to change the world because they are to stupid to change their own business plan to fit the 21st century.[/quote]

Exactly what does a 21st century business plan look like? You can’t compete with free.