TorrentFreak

The place where breaking news, BitTorrent and copyright collide

Canadian Songwriters Want to Legalize File-Sharing

While most of the major entertainment industry companies wage war against BitTorrent sites, the Songwriters Association of Canada prefers to embrace file-sharing. Speaking with TorrentFreak, vice president Jean-Robert Bisaillon says that the Internet has revived the music business. Sharing music is part of people’s nature and the songwriters want to legalize file-sharing, while compensating the artists whose works are shared.

sacWith prominent members such Bryan Adams, Eddie Schwartz, Randy Bachman and Carole Pope among its ranks, the Songwriters Association of Canada (SAC) is the voice of more than 1,500 Canadian artists.

In common with many of the groups tied to the music industry, SAC has a strong opinion about file-sharing. But unlike most of the others, they don’t want to shutter sites that allow people to share copyrighted music. Quite the opposite.

SAC believes that consumers should have access to all the music in the world, something that only file-sharing sites provide today. So instead of shutting these sites down the songwriters association wants to legalize file-sharing, while compensating the artists whose works are shared.

“People have always shared music and always will. The music we share defines who we are, and who our friends and peers are. The importance of music in the fabric of our own culture, as well as those around the world, is inextricably bound to the experience of sharing,” SAC writes in a detailed proposal.

According to the association, file-sharing should be framed as an opportunity rather than a threat to the music industry. To prove this point, SAC is trying to convince other stakeholders that it’s a good idea to monetize file-sharing through some sort of licensing system for consumers.

“Music file-sharing is a vibrant, open, global distribution system for music of all kinds, and presents a tremendous opportunity to both creators and rights-holders. Additionally, once a fair and reasonable monetization system is in place, all stakeholders including consumers and Internet service providers will benefit substantially.”

“By monetizing behavior rather than any specific technology, music creators and rights-holders will lay the foundations for a business model that can continue for decades rather than attempting the almost impossible task of trying to monetize the ever shortening cycle of changing technology,” SAC writes.

With the above, the Association indirectly criticizes the rigid stance of the major labels and the RIAA when it comes to technical innovation. Whether it’s the invention of radio, the cassette tape or file-sharing, they continuously view new technology as a threat instead of something that could help to expand the popularity of music.

To learn more about the ambitious proposal TorrentFreak got in touch with SAC vice president Jean-Robert Bisaillon, who told us that he hopes to make other key players in the music industry aware of the power and value of sharing.

“We think the practice [of file-sharing] is great and unstoppable. This is why we want to establish a regime that allows everyone to keep on doing it without stigmatizing the public and, instead, find a way for artists and rights holders to be fairly compensated for the music files that are being shared,” Bisaillon told us.

“Other positive aspects include being able to find music that is not available in the commercial realm offer, finding a higher quality of digital files, being able to afford music even if you are poor and being able to discover new artists or recommend them to friends.”

SAC’s vice president further notes that not everything the big labels do is in the best interest of musicians and artists. While Bisaillon recognizes that many artists still depend on these companies, he and other songwriters don’t necessarily agree with all their practices.

“The big labels will try to control the market as long as they can and as long as they think the market will generate revenue even if the revenue is the result of legal action. They will try to hook up with whichever commercial endeavor they think might help maintain their control in the marketplace even if this means unfair remuneration for content providers,” Bisaillon says.

“In parallel they will try to discourage any option that may diminish their control even if this means using threats or disinformation. They have the money and contacts to lobby governments in support for their vision. We see our role as developing and providing alternate means of access to music that are good for consumers and creators alike.”

According to Bisaillon the Internet is a blessing, perhaps not for the big music labels, but certainly for musicians and consumers.

“Music is much better off with the Web. The internet network allows for musical discovery despite distance and time of the day. It has sparked collaborations between musicians unimaginable before. It has helped artists to book international tours without expensive long-distances charges and postal delays we knew before,” he told us.

“The Internet has dramatically increased the private non-commercial sharing of music, which we support. All that is missing a means to compensate music creators for this massive use of their work.”

To make this final step SAC is actively talking to all the stakeholders involved, including consumer groups, rights holders and content providers to make their file-sharing license reality.

Although this final step may turn out to be a giant leap for most of the parties involved, it is essential that a prominent association of artists sees the upside to file-sharing. This is a welcome contrast to the repressive stance we are used to hearing from the RIAA and CRIA.

While the “monetize file-sharing” proposal is not necessarily ideal as it has many challenges of its own, SAC’s stance does touch the essence of the ‘problem’. Instead of adding restrictions, the music industry should find ways to give consumers unlimited access to all the music in the world for a fair price.

Related Posts

Previous Post | Next Post

  • Anonymous

    Finally people who get it. But the CRIA (now Music Canada – but basically the same) tries to voice for them, while they don’t agree at all. I suggest leaving them. but that would cause them to suddenly disappear from fame…

    • Anonymous

      @readers:disqus my roomate’s step-aunt makes $81/hr on the computer. last month her paycheck was $8330 just working on the computer for a few hours, she is just one example of many people learned Kelly Richard’s ways …. View More

    • Guest

      But who will pay the corporations?????

      How will music company executives afford their cocaine and hookers? How will their 19-year-old wives get expensive boob jobs? How???

      Can’t you see what you’re doing? Thousands of rich, fat slobs will be forced to look for a real job. It’s unconscionable!

      • Prick

        What exactly is a “real job”? What fakes their job fake?

        • Scary Devil Monastery

          In any market, the fact that the market no longer supports that position tends to be the deciding factor.

          Teleevangelists have a “real job” for as long as they are able to support themselves doing so. When the amount of lost sheep willing to crack their wallets open diminishes said telemarketers go out of business.

          Being a blacksmith is also a “real job”. There just isn’t much demand for it.

          And of course, when the market actually looks twice and finds a man doing what he calls a “real job” which contributes little or nothing but costs ten times as much in overhead as the average paper shuffler in a bureaucracy somewhere, then that “job” comes under real threat.

          You could make an argument for panhandling being a 9-5 job. That doesn’t make it a sensible one.

        • Darwin Crocoduck

          Easy street where all your whims are catered to versus actually doing some manual labor. Welfare versus being employed. Saying you work someplace that you actually don’t (which I did the other day lol). It’s all pretty subjective really. A hard days work for a rich person usually involves things like playing golf and partying, while everyone else works 9 to 5 for minimum wage (if they’re lucky) only to give the bulk of their paycheck back to the rich people in one form or another.

          Some 3.5 billion years of evolution shows us that in order to survive in an ever changing world, one must adapt. Those whom don’t adapt, perish. Living beings evolve. Technology evolves. Society and our economy evolves. Why is it so hard for the copyright industry to do the same? Rather than embracing it, they’ve foolishly chosen to fight nature instead, a battle which cannot be won no matter how hard they fight. They can’t halt progress any more than they could stop our planet from revolving around the sun, though I’m pretty sure they’d try passing legislation which makes it illegal for the Earth to do so lol.

          It’s nice to see someone out there is finally coming to realize this fact, choosing to take a step forward rather than back. I’m especially glad to see it is a group of Canadians as well. Hopefully we’ll see more folks wise up as time progresses. I’m sure it will be inevitable as the old guard is slowly replaced by the new, those whom grew up with technology and understand all the marvelous possibilities it possesses.

    • Canadianwordverification

      Nay. We do not need another tax. P2P raises band awareness, if they want to make money perform concerts and sell merchandise. you make fans by making them happy, taxing them does not make them happy

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100000617943487 Máté Bikfalvi

    I admit that I skimmed through when they started to talk about monetising and it might be the source of my confusion but I don’t see how can they monetise P2P.

    I mean why would trackers suddenly pay licensing fees?

    Digital music is already sold. Selling it DRM free in FLAC sounds way better to me than to have a torrent download option.

    Until they can start selling DRM free high quality music I don’t see the magic here. If you can’t offer a better service than the pirates than you lose. I think Steam is the best example even if it’s DRM. PC games are different than music in that music is portable and widespread and not limited to personal computers. That’s why Steam DRM isn’t an issue.

    I also don’t care whether I can actually hear the difference between FLAC and 320 kbps MP3. I’d rather be limited by my body than by technology at this point and the thought of knowing that I have my music in the best possible quality is reassuring.

    If they could create the GOG of the music world than I sure as hell would purchase more music.

    • Ven

      It is important to note that the SAC is not a musicians union, it is a songwriters union. The overwhelming majority of their revenue comes not from music sales, but from radio play. As such, they rarely see eye-to-eye (and are often at odds) with big labels.

      Everything I read in this article leads me to believe that they simply want P2P to pay broadcasting/streaming royalties (which get to the copyright holders, not necessarily performing artists). The SAC says repeatedly that they want to monetize the P2P networks or “behavior rather than any specific technology” but they don’t give a single specific as to how that would actually be done.

      This is another giant business trying to get their piece of the pie.

      • Anonymous

        Yes but by being one of the people who help create media then a slice of the pie is a legitimate claim for them. It is all the middlemen who only box shift are the ones you need to be wary of.

        • Ven

          How different is that from the SAC wanting to place a music tax on internet connections to be collected by a PRO-type organization? The CRIA opposed that idea back in 2007 if I recall.

          Distribution is box shifting, but it’s still a business. Marketing is still a business, as publishing and studio production are. If those businesses were so bloated, other businesses would have put them out of business by now. If you dislike the big guy or want to argue that he is monopolistic, I can understand that and we could talk about how to legislate against it.

          But those “Monopolies” have contracts with these artists, and they legally deserve a piece of this pie currently. We shouldn’t be allowed to decide to pay artists off the table when they have signed profits over to someone else.

          All that aside, it won’t work because file-sharing can’t properly support a payment system:

          - Either the system is forced upon users, who then turn to free alternatives as they always have; or
          - The system is donation-based, in which case it won’t possibly be as effective as a simple donation button/plugin that gets nearly 100% of the donation directly to the artist.

      • Eddie

        Actually we state specifically that performers will be paid. Also, we are not a union but individual songwriters who belong to a not for profit educational association. We just felt we needed to help creators, most of whom make very little money. Details can be found at http://www.songwriters.ca

        • Ven

          Thank you for the clarification. I look forward to specifics on the proposal, as I can’t fathom a way in which the system could function without severe rewriting of copyright laws.

        • Scary Devil Monastery

          I’ll at least acknowledge points for common sense and for trying.

          But as Ven said, without a complete overhaul of copyright law, you’re up the same alley we are.

          Worse yet, the best window of opportunity was when there was such a thing as centralized distribution (i.e. napster). Today you’d need to rebuild a solution like that – or at the very least a combined tracker/index solution a lá pre-2006 Pirate Bay…and make it competitive. That’s a rather large investment in time and effort.

      • Scary Devil Monastery

        Well, it’s an often used argument but “Oh, if they had been pitching in in the days of napster”…

        There was a time when centralized ad revenues alone could have footed a suggestion like theirs. Still, they do get points for trying…

  • Anonymous

    “By monetizing behavior rather than any specific technology, music creators and rights-holders will lay the foundations for a business model that can continue for decades rather than attempting the almost impossible task of trying to monetize the ever shortening cycle of changing technology,” SAC writes.

    Motmaitre, where are you? Motmaitre? Hello?

    Where did all the Copytrolls go?

    • Ven

      I don’t get how this is a win for anti-industry mindsets: they want to monetize sharing. They are cutting out the middle man of technology and just want to monetize the raw movement of copyrighted works.

      I would think the anti-copyright crowd would see this as a step backwards.

      • Scary Devil Monastery

        Hmmm…Yes, and then again, no.

        An example of a monetized system would be spotify. The introduction of which reduced filesharing of music by an estimated 25%. This is the one and only time filesharing has been seen to drop no matter which factors were involved.

        I personally believe that copyright today is an optional extra – paternity rights and brand name being far more important. But I cannot argue with any system which would be competing with “free” filesharing on fair terms the way spotify does it.

        I’ll add one caveat. If that organization remains one which actually is the songwriters and does a fair representation thereof. The second it turns into a “distribution-only” phenomenon I swing against it, because the main part of the money would then – once again – go into administration.

        • Ven

          I agree with what you are saying. I am concerned with the train of thought coming from the SAC that we need another PRO-like organization collecting royalties on file-sharing, when what we really need is the technological infrastructure to remove the necessity of PROs altogether.

          Get rid of the organizational processes that currently can stiff rights holders out of more than 15% of their earned royalties.

        • Scary Devil Monastery

          @Ven

          Spot on. Being an administrator myself I’m fully aware of how any system will grow unchecked barring active countermeasures against such growth. In the end the system itself costs more overhead than it will facilitate and starts breaking down.

          And that’s when we get self-serving administrative bureaucracies like Copyswede, STIM, and PRO. Whatever nation they’re in they share the same function.

          Peter Sunde’s “Flattr” system was a good move – unfortunately I think it’s a proof-of-concept and nothing more until we actually get a universal internet currency – bitcoin or something else with the same characteristic.

          As is, it’s far harder than it should be to simply open your wallet and take out some spare change. If every musician could be busking on every “street corner” in the world just by using the internet we’d be looking at a few rather wealthy great artists. Right now that wonderful idea gets blocked by middlemen trying to grab themselves a hefty piece of the transaction and in the process making the transaction too hard for the average guy to put up with.

        • Ven

          @ S.D.M.

          Well said. I don’t even think the percentage would be a problem in and of itself (just look at how excited artists are to Tunecore their way onto Itunes), but the system in place that makes it difficult for fans to send money your way.

  • http://twitter.com/juliorcorzo Julio Corzo

    The mp3 players and the digital music libraries fueled the widespread distribution of free music, because people now had the means to store and listen to all the music that is available. Imagine an iPod that, when bought, gives you the right to download music into it and allow artists to be compensated while you add that music into it. I know, it is complicated, but the truth is, I’ve seen many, man artists reach stardom through illegal music. I completely agree with the SAC.

  • StevO

    What I have found with unlimited availability of free music, is that there’s not much of it that I care for. Its all pretty much disposable. Same with movies. And video games for that matter. I pretty much had to force feed myself previously with purchased music and games. Now with a click of a mouse I can get rid of the amount that I spent time getting for free. Music and movies, for a majority really don’t have a value, and I think that’s what the RIAA and MPAA have discovered in light of the internet.

    • Anonymous

      That is rather a depressing view. Maybe you would prefer a nice book?

      I myself skipped totally over music piracy and went to TV episodes simply because I could get the episodes months earlier. I even avoided movies for a long time until one day I had some spare credit to use up.

      My first movie download was Silent Hill. I never heard of it before but it sounded promising. It seems I got lucky when I loved it and it has since become one of my favourite horror movies. I expanded since then including the t-shirt.

      Since then I have never looked back and have found loads of other media to enjoy.

      • StevO

        Well heres a kicker…I also download TV episodes. And I pay my cable bill as well. I only get the TV shows that I already pay for. I other words I could have watched it on TV but don’t have the time to watch them on their scheduled days. I dont think that illegal at all, but i am sure they disagree.

  • Anonymous

    This is very great news indeed.

    Expanding the existing Artist constituency against the current copyright regime is both possible and urgent. It is vital that more and more Artists understand, and take and take a stand on the fact that Artists more than any other segment of society have been disenfranchized and defrauded by these copyright laws.

    I think that the dynamics supporting a truly surprising activist revolt
    among artist against the corporate copyright regime, are not Canada specific; and, can take even more vociferous voice in the US.

    Why?

    Because the greater the repression, the greater the resistence; and, because, in a democracy, the more invalid the assertion of legitimacy,
    the more important is the intellectual creative voice that first rises to
    explain the challenge.

    Explain the challenge: The digital revolution shows us that we are all
    at war against a legislatively privileged group of corporate distributors
    whose business is to usurp the work of Artists (intellectual creative product) and monetize its distribution at cost approaching zero in perpetuity without reversion to the publick domain.

    Why are Artists the weakest link in the armour of the copyright establishment? Because they work eternally at trhe hard task of making up and eternally changing their mind; and once they’ve finally understood themselves it’s extremely difficult to repress them into adopting a perspective that they do not freely own.

    This is why every tyrant seeks to kill his replacement by first finding him among his Artis

  • Pingback: Canadian Songwriters Want to Legalize File-Sharing | We R Pirates

  • Alyssa Blindy

    Canada really does seem to know what they are doing here, at least, this music association does…

  • Horsemeat

    Sounds more like they have no idea what they are going on about to me…

    They still expect to be compensated, and who is going to compensate them… fail.

    Unless they mean set up their own p2p network and get paid via advertising, perhaps force you to look at something to get the decryption key for a music file.

    Other than that they could set up their own private torrent site and use advertising and donations, but I think they must be kidding themselves if they can make big money out of that. Most of costs will be to keep the server up and paying staff.

    • Anonymous

      Actually, a set of Canadian artists I’m particularly fond of (Cadence Weapon, Swollen Members) release a lot of their shit for free and ask for donations in return. I download. Sometimes I donate, sometimes I don’t. Sometimes it’s a lot ($15), sometimes it’s a little ($5). I love going to their show’s- in fact, it was File-Sharing which helped me discover Cadence Weapon and led to my going to my first show. It was that first show that led me to paying for a bunch of my friends to go to his next one. So I guess downloading free music actually worked in CW’s favor.

      I can’t wait for Swollen Members to come back down for another show. (lol see what I did there?)

      • Scary Devil Monastery

        Sounds like a bunch of pricks to me. :-)

    • http://www.twitter.com/echoman74 echoman

      Obvious corporate dinosaur who has no idea about social internet marketing and viral marketing. Because basically the dying industry still thinks the only way to promote artist are to spend advertising and labels etc. Even that =’s fail because the truth of the mater is no one buys cd’s anymore and technology must step forward instead of fall behind. the Internet is the greatest tool to use ever, it won’t cost you a dime to use it just thinking skills.

      • Ven

        The point that Horsemeat defended logically is that trying to churn revenue from P2P is an exercise in failure. It wasn’t about promoting artists, it’s about making money off of file-sharing, and it is a stupid idea.

        • http://www.twitter.com/echoman74 echoman

          what failure is to you is total win for me. File sharing is not the enemy it’s greed and false claims that the Internet can’t benefit artist.Keep trying to convince the masses that the Internet has no benefits. Should i even go there? Justin beiber is one of the best examples.
          Holy fucking shit even he has no problem with it.Then we have n.i.n. nine inch nails and countless others, who’ve made it though file sharing.
          Keep trying and pondering and stomping your feet with the ideology that a big label is the only way.I’m looking forward to the day when consumers, customers , fans tell corporate dinosaurs to shove it.Because without them you wouldn’t be in business.

        • Ven

          @Echoman

          A couple of things you should know:

          - Beiber is a pop-labeled artist. Music sales are meaningless to him because music sales don’t generate any revenue for him. His revenue comes from live shows, appearances, and other places he can capitalize on his popularity. Just like Green Day and other artists that signed their sales royalties over, it’s about widening the fan base instead of selling albums. I find what they are doing (offloading rights for benefits and then encouraging people to not buy) fairly underhanded.
          - NiN (my old buddy Trent) didn’t make it through filesharing. He made it through selling almost 25 million albums, getting nominated for 12 Grammy Awards, and landing 94 on Rolling Stone’s 100 greatest artists of all time list. Oh, he did all of those things on a label. Only after he milked legions of fans from the labels did he decide to ditch the industry and go independent.

          I don’t think big label is the only way, but I disagree with the idea I often see here that we should force it away when plenty of good alternatives already exist. People want to call them the monopoly, but then turn around and undermine their business models simply because they are the most successful. If the big label model is old and unwilling to change, then it should be the new models that undermine the paying customers. And by the way, millions of people are still buying from that dinosaur. Using their money to say “Please don’t shove it.”

          So instead of trying to destroy an industry because you disagree with their price point or the contracts that artists CHOOSE to sign everyday, why don’t you just wait for Jamendo to put Itunes out of business… Or are you afraid that will never happen?

    • Scary Devil Monastery

      No, not really. First of all, an ad-sponsored page and tracker can easily support the running costs. That much is known.

      Secondly, giving people the option to purchase at reasonable prices directly for the added value of just putting favorite works on the shelves IS a major money-maker. Take Trent Reznor for example. We already know enthusiasts are willing to pay.

      The main problem is that every talentless hack who can’t get him/herself enough fans keeps blaming filesharing because their music has been downloaded and tossed into dev/null.

      • Ven

        Enthusiasts also pay for Miley Cyrus garbage, meaning the old model works perfectly well as a major money maker.

        And for the millionth time, please stop using Trent “I spent decades leeching success from the big label marketing machine” Reznor as an example. His success comes from his years of being slammed down the public’s throats by labels, MTV, Rolling Stone, and every other cultural outlet that profits by doing the same. Nobody will spend $2300 on a super special edition of Tay Zonday’s latest album, and if it weren’t for label fame nobody would have done so for Trent either.

        • Resin

          Oh, seems someone else already brought up the Trent Reznor thing. I should have read down more before opening my trap.

        • Scary Devil Monastery

          How about Paulo Coelho? The indie market?

          And unfortunately I will have to keep using Reznor as an example. He did sign on with labels – but not until he’d rammed success home on his own lonesome. Producing, recording, mixing and playing. Even under his labels he kept funding tours from his own pockets and in general every label he was signed on with had to fight pretty hard to get him to do stuff for them instead of as a standalone.

          It’sd pretty obvious that most of his success comes despite of the labels – not because of them. Something he’s been very vocal about since the 90′s.

          In his own words:
          “You see, I had a really bad experienec with my first record label I was signed to. And when I finally got out of that situation and onto a new label, I said “Here’s the deal. You give me a chunk of money and I’ll give you a record. I don’t want A&R. I don’t want any of your interference. I’ll give you magazine ads. I’ll give you a video. I don’t want your help.” So that provided me with an in-house situation where I could do what I want without meddling fingers from record label strangers.”

          My thoughts are that Reznor would have made himself without the help of either manager or label just fine. That much is obvious just looking over his CV. That MTV and Rolling Stone would put him on a pedestal isn’t strange at all and I dare say has less to do with labels than with the fact that he knows how to market himself. If anything most of his labels have held him back more than anything else.

          So he remains a very good example. And one I’ll be trotting out again if the situation calls for it – particularly when some ill-bred troll decides to go with the “Labels are necessary” line.

      • Resin

        Ok, I’ve noticed something. It seems like every other thread, you bring up Trent Reznor as an example that filesharing works. You know that he’s not really a compelling example, right? You’re taking someone who is considered to be a very good performer, near the top of his genre, and who was also famous at the time of the filesharing distibution, and you’re using that as an example of a business model that will also have to support the more average and/or unknown. If you’re trying to convince people that it’s a workable business model for the general artistic population, Trent Reznor is not the example you want to be using. Someone who did it when they weren’t famous, and someone who isn’t considered to be among the greatest at what they do; those would be better examples

        Just a piece of friendly advice, you can choose whether or not to take it.

        • IamME

          “Someone who did it when they weren’t famous, and someone who isn’t considered to be among the greatest at what they do; those would be better examples”

          But with so much diversity available out there and such ease of access, why would settle for anything less than what I consider to be top talents? Sure Reznor is great at what he does, but so is Radiohead, U2, Nightwish, Within Temptation, Krypteria, ReVamp, and so many more. Now, while I can be sure most have heard Radiohead and U2 and some might of heard of Nightwish, few here would have heard or ReVamp and fewer still of Krypteria. All excellent bands and successful, in their respective markets, but not all successful in the American market, which is where much of this skew comes from. There is an inherent bias that if one is to be successful one has to succeed in the American market, but that is far from the truth. The moderately successful Canadian metal band Voivod does abysmally here, and always have, while they enjoy great success in Europe and Japan and probably even more-so with the Internet.

          Before the days of recorded music, music had to be written well and performed well, otherwise people would not come to you shows and one would not be successful. That trend continued probably in to the early 1900′s. As the 20th century progressed the recording industry took a stranglehold over the entire industry, trying to control every aspect. Now in this time, the so-called hay-day of recorded music, even a mediocre talent could enjoy moderate success with the proper advertising, but it could not last and we saw the advent of a new phase, probably in the 80′s…the “One hit wonder”. Faith No More probably tops the list of ultimate one hit wonders. Unfortunately for these one hit wonders, with so much more talent available to consumers, the Internet ultimately forces mediocre talents to the sideline, such is the way of progress.

        • Ven

          @IamME

          He isn’t questions Reznor’s quality as an artist, merely pointing out that he is not a good example of a successful internet business model because his fame carried over from his days at a label.

          Also, if you can’t name bands that used the internet to have American success (which means more importantly they lack global success), then the position that the internet is as effective as label marketing is wrong. I am very familiar with the idea that power metal has a poor audience in the U.S., but that is not the only genre that exists in music.

          So find some artists that have a good amount of success, that they gained without first spending time working under labels, and use them. Even if they aren’t Trent Rezzie, they will be far more impressive as an example of what you are saying.

        • Resin

          To add to what Ven said, I don’t think the new paradigm supports talent so much as it supports fame. People pay for what they know, but even if something else obscure is better, they are less likely to pay because of lack of name recogonition, which isn’t even counting the challenge of obscurity rising when there isn’t any money for marketing (filesharing isn’t known for giving investment and marketing money).

        • IamME

          My point wasn’t that these bands are employing successful Internet models or that the use of big labels and Internet are mutually exclusive. My point was that with the Internet, if one was so keen to explore alternative music, music being that which the American media industry does not provide and that this diversity does not bode well for those of mediocre talent.

          You’re measuring success by a band’s ability to penetrate a single market and I think this is a falsity. The United States is not the center of the universe as their media industry likes to believe. If given a choice, success in the US or success in many other countries, where do you think a sensible performer will choose? If I sell a million albums world-wide, but only 10 in the US, is that a failed business model? I don’t think so.

          Filesharing can get relatively unknown music in to the public eye. Now I’m not advocating mass piracy, but once in the public eye, that free download “can” generate untold amounts of sales.

        • Scary Devil Monastery

          I’m aware of that. I trot out Reznor because he’s representative of what you just said – a great artist. A great artist will do just fine.

          On the other side of the scale I introduce Rebecca Black in the same way – she sold hundreds of thousands of copies of her song “Friday” on iTunes. I recommend listening to that song once. My guess is that’s all anyone with working ears can stand anyway. She more or less inflicted that 2000$-production on everyone via Youtube and still managed to sell it.

          The point is that as long as you CAN market yourself, you can also sell it and turn a good profit. Trent and Rebecca are the two polar opposites I use as a bread-and-butter example simply because they are so bloody representative.

          As for trent being famous in advance – the same can pretty much be said about Shakira, Lady gaga, and any other artist who isn’t today afraid of filesharing.

          My point would be that if you look at most of the artists today who are unafraid of filesharing you’ll find that their history suggests they are famous largely in spite of their label association, not because of it.

          How about David Bowie and his statements? Or to quote ancient history, how about grateful dead when they released their entire collection for old-style bootlegging, making a killing on the merchandize?

          Yes, i keep bringing up Trent Reznor simply because it’s a hammer of choice when the target is a troll who brings up “Musicians can’t compete with free” for the umpteenth time. If they keep bringing the same argument to the table fifteen times then I don’t see the need for bringing fifteen different counters to it either.

    • Floppy Copy

      Just because you and I cannot come up with a good idea on how to best monetize all aspects of the internet doesn’t mean there isn’t a way to do it. Look how long it took for humans to figure out and make use of electricity. Up until then, most folks probably believed all it was good for is killing people at random. All it took was for someone smarter than the rest to figure it out, and just look where electricity has taken humanity! It’s the same with file sharing. We’re all just waiting for the one person smarter than the rest of us to come along with a great idea on how to monetize it. Once that is done, a new world of possibilities will open up that everyone will benefit from.

      • Greasd

        That brings up the question of why we’re trying to change the business models before that smarter person has actually changed it.

        Seriously, why can’t someone just start a business based around P2P technology, around the free expression of culture that does support the artists? Why is it so important that we “kill the copyright industry” without having anything to replace it?

        It seems to me that if people think a filesharing business model will be so successful, they should start the business and let the artists come to them. They should kill the industries by starting a better business. Why isn’t that happening?

        I’m not trying to be rude or mean with these questions. I’m trying to be serious, and would like to hear if someone has a real answer? It just doesn’t make much sense to me.

        • Ven

          I’ve asked this before. Some believe that the copyright industry lobbies in the government to prevent these industries from rising up.

          But p2p is still as unregulated as it ever was, so I’m not sure how much water that argument holds.

        • Greasd

          I’ve never seen any evidence anywhere that the industries prevent these business from starting up. I don’t know of any law that would prevent me from starting such a business right now. Personally, I think the reason we haven’t seen it happen is because the entrepreneurs don’t want to do it. Businessmen don’t think they’ll make money, and the few who have started them up have decided to do without the consent of the artists, a la your typical filesharing website.

        • Ven

          I would kill to see a BT, Firefox, and/or Winamp plugin that gave me an easy way to donate to the band I was listening to now.

          Right now though, the best way to support artists is to stream their music. If they hold the copyright they will even earn royalties the first time you listen to their stuff.

        • Scary Devil Monastery

          @Ven

          Not so much lobbying. Rather that for a company like Spotify to set up they first have to assemble the media equivalent of a cross-licensing treaty just to provide a proper selection. That’s more or less a nightmare and took the spotify team quite a few years to swing.

          Even so, as part and parcel of their ability to launch in the US they had to abandon the ad-driven model almost completely which of course meant that music piracy took an upturn once again.

          You can use p2p as a financial model. The big stumbling block is the fact that copyright holders in the form of major labels really don’t want to enable such services since that puts up a direct price point competition with their other venues of marketing and sales. And when you have Sony, EMI and Warner each demanding 90% of the proceeds you know you’ll end up with a very sticky negotiation to start with.

          That’s not lobbying so much as a simple no-brainer.

        • Ven

          @ S.D.M.

          The big roadblock to legalized monetized P2P is current copyright law more than anything else. Just look at broadcasting/streaming royalties in the U.S.: when you play my song on the radio or stream it online, I get more than 9 cents. For a single play. Now that can be offset by ads in the current cases of streaming and broadcasting, but file-sharing?

          The only ways in which ad revenue could pay more than 9 cents per sharing of a song would be so invasive and annoying that users would flock again to alternatives. And this is only comparing file-sharing to broadcasting royalties. When it comes to sales, copyright holders can make about 70 cents per song (going on ITunes numbers) – something that no successful/reasonable/popular file-sharing system could compete with.

          And we are only talking about music, which is much kinder to the comparison than games, movies, or TV shows would be.

          So what all of this really boils down to in my mind is whether or not the governments will be convinced that file-sharing (and it’s much lower rights holder payout) is paying enough to justify the legalization… And I just don’t think that would be as likely as shortening copyright duration or even abolishing copyright altogether.

        • Scary Devil Monastery

          @Ven

          “So what all of this really boils down to in my mind is whether or not the governments will be convinced that file-sharing (and it’s much lower rights holder payout) is paying enough to justify the legalization… And I just don’t think that would be as likely as shortening copyright duration or even abolishing copyright altogether.”

          You may be correct. Abolishing copyright – or even leaving only the option of a creative commons model – may be the end result. That or legislation similar to the swedish laws regarding jaywalking (It’s illegal but there is no judicial penalty imposed – as it turned out to be in reality impossible to enforce or prove in ordinary society).

          The last option is what I’m afraid of. We already have enough laws making perfectly ordinary behaviour generally accepted by the vast majority criminal, which results in a well-deserved disrespect for law in general.

        • Ven

          @S.D.M.

          There is a good reason that file-sharing will not be akin to jay walking: file-sharing as viewed by law infringes upon the rights of others. If the law is to accept copyright then it must at least attempt to combat infringement.

          Realistically I see CC works existing along side a shortened copyright lifespan in the ballpark of 10-25 years before being freely shareable for non-commercial use.

    • Scary Devil Monastery

      Um. Spotify uses this model and is doing quite well. The introduction of spotify alone reduced music piracy by 25% in Sweden. So we already know the system works.

      And unlike heavy-handed legislation, a model like Spotify has actually made an impact. You catch more flies with honey than vinegar. It’s that simple.

      • Ven

        Spotify also has a sliding-scale payout system for streaming. As a result, you can be streamed 100,000 times and not make $10 (unbelievably low compared to radio/streaming royalties in the U.S.). They actually have quite a few independent artists and labels who have removed their music due to poor returns.

        Check this comparison out: http://www.informationisbeautiful.net/2010/how-much-do-music-artists-earn-online/

        To earn minimum wage, a solo artist could either sell 142 self-pressed CDs, 165 albums on Itunes, or get over 4 million streams on Spotify each month.

        Jamendo is great, Spotify is an unsustainable business model.

        • Scary Devil Monastery

          You may be right, unfortunately. The point is, spotify presumes an audience of premium subscribers. That only works when spotify actually is the major market.

          As even the most diehard spotify fan admits s/he has to go elsewhere for at least half of their consumption, the business model breaks down right there – referring back to your other post: “The big roadblock to legalized monetized P2P is current copyright law more than anything else.”

          IP has turned into an over-complicated monstrosity which in itself seems to preclude most sensible ways of applying it in a market.

        • Ven

          What concerns me most about sliding scale is not that small time artists and labels are getting stiffed, but that at the other end there are big labels and artists being accommodated. The technological platform is new, but the players are taking the exact same positions.

          Spotify offers undiscovered artists less than Youtube does. It’s basically a subscription-based Myspace Music, where if they surf your genre or know your name they might find you. The only difference is that Myspace is free and doesn’t run audio ads that cut into your listening time.

  • http://twitter.com/MAFIAAFire MAFIAAFire

    Totally off topic, but please visit thepiratebay for a surprise…
    we are sooo fu*king proud!!!

    Cheers!
    MAFIAAFire

    • Guest

      I can’t connect to The Pirate Bay. WTF

    • http://twitter.com/unusedcrayon Bear

      Now that is awesome. :D

  • Anonymous

    linkhide.com.ar/47632

    • Captain Buzzoverinthehead DFC

      More spam via the linkhide.com.ar redirector. Flagged.

  • Anonymous

    unfortunately, convincing the entertainment industries alone wont do any good while those industries keep ‘encouraging’ the gullible idiots in governments to side with them and ignore all the independent, nothing to lose or gain, reports that have been submitted that totally contradict the industries own ‘i paid for it, so it must be correct’ reports. the EUCJ and Switzerland have seen the light, ignored the industries and come down on the side of common sense based on facts. trouble is, even now the UK, France and other EU countries are dismissing the EUCJ ruling and still going down the path of protecting the industries by trying to get new laws into being, including making the various ISPs responsible for policing their ‘file sharing’ customers. as long as these governments haven’t got the balls to ‘step up to the plate’ and tell the entertainment industries where to get off, there will be no changes. one hell of a shame but money always rules!

  • http://www.twitter.com/echoman74 echoman

    I didn’t actually read this whole entire post but as an artist myself i agree aswell it’s the artist to decide not an association. Lol i would love to show you all a back to back tweet i received from the riaa a few weeks back. Pretty much they think we are dependent on them and the only way to become famous is through a “label.” total fail.
    WHEN ACTUAL ARTIST SPEAK OUT IS WHEN THE INDUSTRY NEEDS TO SHUT THE FUCK UP AND AND SHOVE IT.

    • Anonymous

      Big Meat Hammer is the oldest punk band in Maine and I share all my music and from more than one band I have done.
      Young Artists reading this take my advice and never aspire to sign with a big label or the RIAA.you can do it all on your own and you will control your destiny not someone else.

      • http://www.twitter.com/echoman74 echoman

        no doubt bro we should chat offline i have some plan in the works. :)

  • Pingback: Oh those wacky Canadians and their wanting to legalize file-sharing

  • Commando

    but I , being poor, have only my dreams..

  • Anonymous

    phlpn.es/829r8s

    • Captain Buzzoverinthehead DFC

      Amusing how the spammers are now desperate and resorting to using these URL shortening sites with no terms of service and no abuse address…

      Anyway, flagged.

      • Fredrika

        > “..with no terms of service and no abuse address..”

        The abuse address is usually abuse @ domain.

        And although it’s commendable that some people, like yourself, try to report these spammers to the services that offer shortened and masked URL’s, the responsible parties that currently are in no way taking their responsibility is Torrentfreak and Disqus.

        Disqus is offering a service that’s easily misused by spammers, and Disqus seems to have no function that automatically identifies when a spam bot posts the same URL in several comments in a short period of time, and when they do get reported(not through their flag service for individual comments, but through their help center), they don’t care about deleting the profiles completely and all their spam comments in one instance.

        Secondly, Torrentfreak has a responsibility to their readers to use a comment service that offers a good function for the readers encouraging and helping constructive commenting without disturbing objects that draws focus away from that, and their current choice, Disqus, is currently not taking problems such as spam bots serious, so Torrentfreak has a responsibility here as well putting pressure on Disqus to resolve these issues.

  • Anonymous

    Here’s an idea, artists publicly display a donation address for bitcoin, this address is linked to torrents of their stuff, you can easily toss a bit of coin their way if you like it.

    • It’s a fit-up

      Or you could always donate real money.

  • Anonymous

    Legalize? Well thats no fun! LOL.
    ano-toolz.tk

  • Nebojsa

    File sharing (music in particular) in Canada is legal. We pay tax on music CDs that is distributed to music labels and artists. I pay this tax even when I purchase CD spindle to use and burn photos to develop. There are more uses for CDs than music but everyone pays this tax. So they are getting whole lot of $$$ and by that basically music file sharing in Canada is completely legal and backed by our tax dollars! I have no idea what these people are trying to say in this article other than voice their opinion that music as whole, across all of free open world should be legal to share.

    • B265136

      I was under the impression that downloading for personal use was legal in Canada, but not uploading (file-sharing).

  • Anonymous

    linkhide.com.ar/47632

    • Captain Buzzoverinthehead DFC

      Another desperate spammer….

      Flagged.

  • Guest

    Going by the vitriol being spewed about Switzerland (you know what I mean; the claims that Switzerland not liking three-strikes as a policy means that the country is worthless in terms of culture) I predict the Anons, Pelouzes, willaLavies and whatnots coming to crow about how Canadian songwriters suck because they’re pirate apologists.

    • Zig

      Considering that Alanis Morissette and Brian Adams are Canuks, they may have a point about Canadian songwriters sucking! LOL

  • dill

    Check out Jamendo guys.
    Great site for copy-wrong free music.

  • Pingback: Canadian Songwriters Want to Legalize File-Sharing | TorrentForce Blog

  • Anonymous

    We will know it when times come. At the moment, music sharing is very strange to the music industry. This involves revenue and income.

  • Anonymous

    I think these book publishers have got rather confused here.

    It is the Government’s way that when piracy is getting out of hand to remove the income that this piracy makes. In this case that is advertising income when direct subscriptions are already taken care of under the law.

    This is a policy that gets large scale support when even the people doing piracy believe that it should not be done for profit when it is wrong to make money from another person’s creation. If that was not the case some nasty suppliers would still want you to pay the listed book price with no funds going to the owner.

    Business’s wanting to sue an advertiser is a whole different ball game. The latter has nothing to do with the former when such advertising has not yet been outlawed. This is an area much untested in law and it would be very hard to make something stick.

    Nothing an advertiser likes better than a new untapped market. Large masses of people doing something, in this case hundreds of millions, is reason enough when this is democracy in action. The people have spoken and the advertisers will use their marketing genius to exploit them.

    Well it is kind of shame this case got no further. They made the age old mistake of not assembling enough information to prove their case so the court went with “not guilty” when achieving “guilty” was impossible. So this case is only a good reminder that those who go to court always need to do their homework first.

  • Louigi Verona

    “once a fair and reasonable monetization system is in place”

    I think this is a key phrase. I would like to hear a good argument that would explain how can it be fair, when it is clear that any monetary system will necessarily exclude some people from culture because they either have no money or are not able to use this “fair and reasonable monetization system”.

  • Anonymous

    It is no surprise that song-writers and musicians in Canada have extra doubts in the record labels when these are the same people who have been ripping them off for very many years. We may recall record labels using the submitted music on their sold mix CDs and then putting the owners on a “waiting to be paid list”. After a 20 year delay they got tired of waiting and thousands of musicians in a class action lawsuit successfully sued the record labels for millions,

    The Canadian Government was also to blame for letting record companies to keep such a delay list in the first place.

    Moving on then making money from file sharing is an age old problem and one that does need to be solved before many people see file-sharing as a legitimate and natural market. It would also a key act to bring down the old market.

    My idea is to simply allow artists and owners to link to their already shared creation by attaching to these files three things. First is a copyright or creative commons noticed of ownership and allowed use. Second is a link to the owners homepage which is a key method of income to allow people who liked their media the option to buy or sample more. Third would be a logo or banner file so that each owner can add their own unique design.

    Easy to do and what shared media should allow with these notifications appearing on sites like TPB in a method that YouPorn already do. This gives reason for owners to upload to advertise to a market that can make them money.

    Making money by other means all comes down to what you want to tax. This can be blank media, Internet connections or to go for a direct file sharers licence. Pick your poison but at least my idea is not forcing anyone to pay up if they do not want to.

  • Pingback: Los compositores canadienses quieren legalizar el intercambio de archivos: Alt1040 #iMAPAS — #iMAPAS

  • Pingback: Los compositores canadienses quieren legalizar el intercambio de archivos - La Isla Buscada

  • Anonymous

    Bryan Adams is a member? I find that hard to believe because when I upped some of his albums into the public torrent domain, Demonoid deleted it because of a take-down notice from Bryan Adams & cohorts.

    Why would Adams ask Demonoid to take it down if he is a member of The Canadian Songwriters Associatiion?

    Something isn’t adding up…

    • Maroan

      It is not necessary Adams fault. His label or his manager might have filled the take-down notice without his consent. “Weird Al” Yankovic has written a song, using Lady Gaga’s “Born this Way”. Before publishing it, he sendt a request to Lady Gaga for her permision to use the music. Lady Gaga’s manager replied and it was a no… Yankovic decided to publish the song through the net for free, and it became a nice hit. Lady Gaga never heard anything about the request, and her manager admitted to have taken the decision without her knowledge….

    • Ven

      It could also be a label or publishing company that actually manages the rights to his music.

  • MD3

    Put a P2P levy on ISPs and leave people alone to share whatever they want. It’s so fucking easy…

    • Zig

      So you’re in favour of taxing people who don’t share anything and even people who use P2P software to obtain public domain, creative commons or any freely available music and software? P2P isn’t an unlawful protocol, it’s what you do with it that defines lawfulness. If you’re using a torrent client to download a Linux distro then you shouldn’t expect to pay a levy that supports the music industry for the privilege.

    • Ik

      I don’t ever use P2P for anything. Why should I pay a tax to support your habit?

  • Anonymous

    linkhide.com.ar/47632

    • Captain Buzzoverinthehead DFC

      …. aaaaand another spam flagged.

  • Anonymous

    linkhide.com.ar/47632

    • Captain Buzzoverinthehead DFC

      Two spams in quick succession? Must be getting *really* desperate…

      ….aaaaand flagged.

      • spambots aren’t human

        dude, it’s a spambot, not a person…just flag it and move on…no need to comment

        • Captain Buzzoverinthehead DFC

          Why, thank you. That will save me some time too.

        • Anonymous

          As your comments add nothing, and are thus spam themselves, THEY get flagged and you’re likely to be banned

        • Guest

          If people don’t comment “flagged” most people won’t flag the spam.

  • Anonymous

    phlpn.es/829r8s

  • Anonymous

    Good words from Exene Cervenka yesterday:
    http://blogs.phoenixnewtimes.com/uponsun/2011/12/xs_exene_cervenka_on_multiple_1.php

    “How do you feel about fans downloading your music?

    I couldn’t care less. They can do anything they want with my stuff. If they want to listen to my music, or look at my art, or download a poster or a book, I say go for it.

    I’m not going to get paid anyway. Do you think Warner Brothers is ever going to pay me a penny for any records I ever made, or Slash Records? I don’t get paid for those. They’re protecting the rights they own on my work so that they can make money, not that I can get paid. They don’t pay me, the laws are not in my favor.

    They have so many restrictions on payment. Let’s say you sell 50,000 records and in the stores, there’s another 10,000 floating around. They won’t pay you on the 50,000 because they say, “What if those 10,000 get returned? Then we’ll have a loss, so we can’t pay you.” It’s ridiculous.

    Slash Records is now part of Warner Brothers, so all the records [Slash] sold don’t count now. We have not gotten a gold record for Los Angeles, which means we have not sold 500,000 copies. We sold well over a million copies of that record, but they just say that we haven’t, and there’s nothing you can do.

    It’s really difficult to get paid. So, yeah, I say, “Steal it all. Steal it all.” I make my monthly bills. I don’t care. I don’t need more than what I need. I’m not looking to be a millionaire. It would be nice if those situations weren’t corrupt.”

    • Anonymous

      I would find it hard to say this sad story were “good words”.

      So his record company ripped him off and he now makes no money. It is sad to say many record labels do this but not all.

      My reply to Exene Cervenka would be… We do not want to steal your music only to sample it and enjoy it. We also want you to get paid for what we do enjoy which is why you have sold over a million copies of Los Angeles. It is not our fault your label has ripped you off so please don’t hate us for wanting to enjoy your music.

      And since he has given his approval then one cannot “infringe” or “steal”. Or more correctly he once sold his soul to Slash Records and it is now WB and not him who can grant such free distribution authorization.

      We don’t care what WB say. :-)

      • ZiggySig

        It’s “she”, not “he”.

        • Anonymous

          I fixed it. Goes to show how much I am into music… not a lot.

      • Ven

        Uh, they invested real money into her for production, distribution, and marketing. She signed full rights away in return, not to her soul but just the few dozen songs she wrote/performed. She signed her “approval” away to someone else, she can’t claim to have that authority and neither should you.

        If she didn’t like the deal, she shouldn’t have made it. Nobody forced her to sign it, and nobody forces her to ever repeat those mistakes.

    • Anonymous

      I would say to any struggling artist thinking of signing wih a distributor that what
      that distributor has in mind only profits the disributorship.

      Perhaps its time for every artist to think of his computer as his own private distributorship and reach out directly to his audience. Why? A grateful audience can probably be persuaded to pay a talanted creative artist a generous measure of what his work is worth; but that same universe of customers sees the distributor as a previleged parasite who should be paid ZERO.

      That’s the social meaning of p2p: Billions of customers asking, “What coercion should be entitled to compell us to pay for distribution at the same charges as the old physical universe of warehouses, transportation hubs, trains, ships. ports of call, when these costs today on a computer are aproximations of zero.?

    • Ven

      “They don’t pay me, the laws are not in my favor.”

      Wrong, her contract was not in her favor. If you are wise enough to have a lawyer look over your contract before you sign it, these kinds of things won’t happen (unless your lawyer blows).

      But you quoted it, she essentially said to download because SHE won’t get paid anyway. She signed away those royalties for a production/marketing deal, and then encourages fans to stiff her business partners. It seems selfish and immature.

      If you don’t like your business arrangements, break contract or let it expire and then do business some other way.

  • Pingback: Los compositores canadienses quieren legalizar el intercambio de archivos | EmaCorp News

  • Mwhahaha

    All they have to do now is work how to monetize it? Oh well that’s fine then. Easy.

    Hmph.

    The only way I can see that happening is if they have their own site for Canadian Songwriters which carries advertising. Perhaps advert files included in the torrent?
    Some kind of rar that you have to get a password from a site full of ads.

    If they start talking about ads appended to individual tracks then it will die in the water.

    Will be interesting to see if they try for donations. If you liked this act… give here.

    Perhaps if they set up a site and gear all the ads to when these acts are playing live, and also sell tickets and merchandising directly from the site, then it might work.

    It will be great to see them try. To see if a group of creative people can band together without any more than someone facilitating their online presence and trying to make a living from live shows & merchandise without the interference of the media company pimps.

    From day one record company bosses have been underhanded swindling bottom feeders sucking money from the business. Good for the Canadians.

    Canada, oh Canada!

  • DRuNKeN MaSTeR

    “…and who our friends and *peers* are.” – I see what you did there ;)

  • Pingback: Los compositores canadienses quieren legalizar el intercambio de archivos | www.Faltariamas.com - www.Faltariamas.es

  • B251463

    My point o view how to compensate artist/authors/musicians/labels/whatever.

    Just make an ID3 v3 tags with a hardcoded digitally signed certyficates. If music player eg. Winamp detect such a tag and included certyficate pass online authentication (eg. get blessing from the music industry) then a small button “compensate” should appear at the end of track title.

    When user click on such button then appropriate website should appear in the user browser. There user could determine what amount he wants to reward the creator of a particular track and have a possibility to easily transfer money. How such money will be divided is not a user/consumer concern.

  • IamME

    It’s good to see SOC speaking with a clear head and realizing the reality of things. Unfortunately they have no real power.

    You know everyone talks about piracy being the largest threat to the music industry. I don’t see it that way. What’s a far larger threat, and really, we only talking about the North American music industry, that didn’t exist, say, 25 years ago? Competition!!! These days people listen to what they like, when they want, all at the click of a button. Music from The Netherlands, Japan, Portugal, is no less available and no more expensive than locally made music. There is a world of musical diversity and choice out there and unlike the days of MTV and radio, the American media giants can no longer control or force feed what we as consumers and/or fans listen to and enjoy.

    Personally, I listen to primarily European music. I find it generally less formula and the music better written. I can easily find similar artists to sample on places like YouTube (Or Pandora, with the use of a VPN). 25 years ago none of this was possible and all my “media money” went toward purchases of what I heard on the radio or Much Music. These days, the North American music industry has a world of competition that simply didn’t exist in the past pulling money away from it. People may or may not be spending more or less money, but one thing that is for certain is that that money is spread out a lot thinner, covering a far wider area than it once did.

    Another big distinction between North American and European artists is that many more European artists are socially active with their fans. Whether it be blogs, Facebook, forums, twitter, fan events, special shows, etc. European bands generally do more of it and do it better. One example that comes to kind…Within Temptation had a poster in their newest album that had the name of every Facebook fan who posted one of their videos to their wall printed on it. It may take a little extra time and effort on their side, but that’s ultimately a great marketing scheme to lure sales and new fans alike. But for every new fan bands like Within Temptation, Nightwish, Epica or Sirenia gets that a potential fan Evanescence does not. I no longer listen to Evanescence as I find the European options to be generally superior.

  • Pingback: Los compositores canadienses quieren legalizar el intercambio de archivos | R-NET

  • Pingback: Televisiones inteligentes, ¿la próxima gran revolución? | IUS ABOGADOS

  • Anonymous
  • Anonymous

    tinyurl.ie/7fb

  • Pingback: La vía canadiense: una propuesta diferente » El Blog de Enrique Dans

  • Anonymous

    phlpn.es/829r8s

  • Anon

    SAC is just a bunch of left wing socialists who are trying to cash in on the anti-piracy movement. After they start losing their jobs they will quickly turn their “ship” around. They can’t sing so they write music, and then try to hurt the industry.

    • http://travismccrea.com Travis McCrea

      Am I doing it right?

    • Ven

      Are you aware Anon that you don’t need to post here to pass the time? I mean, Fox News does run 24/7 if you are bored and in need of intellectual vomiting.

      • http://travismccrea.com Travis McCrea

        lol I actually was making a joke and posting as “anon”. This wasn’t him. :P I was just trolling (not to be serious, but just to point out how dumb he sounds)

  • Anonymous

    tinyurl.ie/7fb

  • Anonymous

    phlpn.es/829r8s

  • Anonymous

    tinyurl.ie/7fb

  • Myles Twine

    “..the music industry should find ways to give consumers unlimited access to all the music in the world for a fair price.”

    Kinda there already… called zune pass. Unlimited music for a “fair price”. But most people still don’t even want to pay that. So that idea is already failing.

    • IamME

      I haven’t used Zune, but it looks like a locked-in, proprietary platform, which only works on supported devices, which is not what people want. This is more likely why it’s not taking off. Even at free, I suspect Zune would have a fairly limited uptake.

  • Pingback: Canadian Songwriters Want to Legalize File-Sharing « Pkrf1end's Blog

  • Pingback: Autores canadienses a favor de legalizar el intercambio p2p

  • Anonymous

    tinyurl.ie/7fb

  • Anonymous

    phlpn.es/829r8s

  • Pingback: Autores canadienses a favor de legalizar el intercambio p2p « Maestroviejo's Blog

  • Matt

    In order for “copyright trolls” to log IP address, they must join the swarm and therefor participate in the illegal distribution of their agents work. If the copyright holder is therefore participating in the “pirating” of the copyrighted work, the public should be able to assume the copyright is waived and sharing is encouraged by the copyright holder.

  • Pingback: SOPA Will Mean The End of Reddit, Says General Manager – TorrentFreak - San Francisco Luxury Living | San Francisco Luxury Living

  • Pingback: Canadian Songwriters Want to Legalize File-Sharing | Droid Universe

  • BTGuard - BitTorrent Anonymously

NewsBits

Even more news...

  • Blu-ray Anti-Piracy Tech Stops Discs and Promotes Purchases

    An anti-piracy system present in all official Blu-ray players since 2012 has received a fresh update...

  • Foxtel Breeds Pirates by Locking Up Game of Thrones

    One of the main reasons why people turn to piracy is the lack of legal alternatives....

  • UK Student Admits Breaching Sony Copyrights With Leak of PS3 SDK

    Last year an Internet user known as El Nomeo leaked version 3.70 of Sony’s Playstation3 SDK...

  • Pirates Can Be Identified Despite Sharing IP Addresses, ISP Claims

    Carrier-Grade Network Address Translation is a network mechanism through which many Internet subscribers can share the...

  • Feds Seize Cash from Major Bitcoin Exchange’s Dwolla Account

    The U.S. Government has taken a significant action against the web’s top Bitcoin exchange by seizing...

MostDiscussed

Below are TorrentFreak's most discussed articles of the past month. Join the discussion if you like.

CopyQuote

Left Quote

“The Pirate Bay has been one of the most important movements in Sweden for freedom of speech, working against corruption and censorship.

Peter Sunde Left Quote

PopularArticles

A selection of some TorrentFreak's classics dug up from our archives.