Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

CRIA Files Massive Canadian Suit Against IsoHunt

Soulskill posted more than 3 years ago | from the payable-in-hockey-pucks dept.

Canada 160

An anonymous reader writes "After claiming for years that Canada has lax copyright laws that can't deal with downloading, 26 record labels have secretly filed a massive lawsuit against isoHunt. The suit was filed three weeks before Canada introduced the Canadian DMCA, yet the industry did not disclose the suit and regularly claimed it was powerless to do anything about the site."

cancel ×

160 comments

Aaaah. unbridled capitalism. (4, Insightful)

unity100 (970058) | more than 3 years ago | (#35206678)

you can lie, you can deceive, you can screw customers, you can fraud, you can scam, but still in the end you can come up right, because they are allowed in the system - you just need to arrange your ToSes, legal clauses properly, and have a good legal team that the unwashed masses wont be able to buy.

Re:Aaaah. unbridled capitalism. (-1, Flamebait)

Elbereth (58257) | more than 3 years ago | (#35206750)

Give me a break. And if these guys were distributed a closed source version of some GNU software or the Linux kernel, slashdot would be screaming for their heads on a platter. Engage in software piracy, and you're the little guy being persecuted by The Man.

Re:Aaaah. unbridled capitalism. (1)

monkyyy (1901940) | more than 3 years ago | (#35206768)

i think that would be under "you can screw customers" with a hint of "you can deceive"

Re:Aaaah. unbridled capitalism. (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35206786)

Not very bright are you? Or the most obvious troll I have seen in a while.

This isn't like them going against Napster or anything like that, ISOHunt actually changed their site where you can't sort by type or anything like that anymore.

It infringes no more than Bing or Google now as all it does is catalog and search torrent files by name, leechers and seeders. It doesn't host or pick and choose them. I hope you never have to work on any jury or some innocent man is going to end up frying due to your ignorance.

Re:Aaaah. unbridled capitalism. (1)

unity100 (970058) | more than 3 years ago | (#35207232)

yes yes. EVERY kind of thing that corporations or 'rights holders' do, have an excuse, a justification, and rationalization.

the one who is not being rather bright is not me, but the one who had missed that the post he replied to, addresses that very fact - that there being a rationalization, justification for something, does not excuse that action.

Re:Aaaah. unbridled capitalism. (2, Insightful)

Pax681 (1002592) | more than 3 years ago | (#35207516)

LOOK they should sue google! [google.co.uk] all you do is type the following "filetype torrent tron" and it'll go a torrent searching.....

so why don't they sue google? coz google probably has better lawyers than they do and certainly has better lawyers than isohunt

Re:Aaaah. unbridled capitalism. (1)

rikkards (98006) | more than 3 years ago | (#35207894)

Really? I just did a search and was able to sort by type? You in the US, I think it is different there. We up north still have the ability to use the dropdown.

Re:Aaaah. unbridled capitalism. (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35206808)

Piracy and violating the terms of a license are two different things. Do try to keep up.

Re:Aaaah. unbridled capitalism. (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35207198)

Uh, no they aren't, not in this case.

Piracy.is infringing copyright by distributing copies or derivatives of a work without permission.
A GPL violation.is infringing copyright by distributing a derived work (object code) without permission (because permission is granted only by the GPL, and only if you comply with its terms).

That's where the GPL differs from a EULA (and why a thousand windows installers for GPL software are doing it wrong, by forcing an agree-click to install) -- a EULA imposes restrictions if you agree to it, while the GPL allows privileges if you agree to it. As result, there's no "oh, but I didn't sign a license agreement, I/my kid/a stray cat/a very small perl script clicked the only button that moves forward, regardless of what it was labeled" dodge with the GPL -- end users get the same rights (to use it) whether or not they agree, and would-be copiers are even more restricted (all rights reserved, like everything else) if they don't agree.

Re:Aaaah. unbridled capitalism. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35207374)

I believe you will find piracy is plundering booty on the high sea.

Re:Aaaah. unbridled capitalism. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35208172)

Piracy has meant copyright infringement in context, in the English language for about 400 years. Do try to keep up.

Re:Aaaah. unbridled capitalism. (1)

Elbereth (58257) | more than 3 years ago | (#35208262)

I think you're the only person on Slashdot who understood my point, though I may have worded it a bit too trollishly (out of force of habit, I suppose).

Re:Aaaah. unbridled capitalism. (2)

commodore6502 (1981532) | more than 3 years ago | (#35208352)

>>>Piracy.is infringing copyright by distributing copies or derivatives of a work without permission.

Let me see if I care.
(ponder)
Nope. As long as producers refuse to let me return shit like Transformers 2, Day the Earth Stood Still, Avatar, and so on, then I feel I have a right to Take action to not waste my money (i.e. to try before I buy). Every other industry in the world provides a return policy - why should music/movie makers be any different? (And don't bring-up reviews, which are bought-and-paid for by those same companies and therefore reviews are worthless.)

- "Grants of this sort can be justified in very peculiar cases only, if at all; the danger being very great that the good resulting from the operation of the monopoly, will be overbalanced by that the monopoly itself, in its original operation, may produce more evil than good [i.e. RIAA and MPAA]." - James Madison, author of the US Constitution.

"If Nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an idea, which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps it to himself; but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the possession of every one, and the receiver cannot dispossess himself of it. Its peculiar character, too, is that no one possesses the less, because every other possesses the whole of it.

"He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. That ideas should freely spread from one to another over the globe, for the moral and mutual instruction of man, and improvement of his condition, seems to have been peculiarly and benevolently designed by nature, when she made them, like fire, expansible over all space, without lessening their density in any point, and like the air in which we breathe, move, and have our physical being, incapable of confinement or exclusive appropriation. Inventions then cannot, in Natural Right, be a subject of property." - Thomas Jefferson, 1780s

Re:Aaaah. unbridled capitalism. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35207050)

How about you go fuck yourself? Or better, let somebody else fuck you in the ass with a chainsaw.

People like you are a cancer to the world. Fucking DIE.

Re:Aaaah. unbridled capitalism. (1)

unity100 (970058) | more than 3 years ago | (#35207234)

yes. people like me are the ones who have raped mexico gulf, amazon forest, frauded countries .... indeed we are truly deserving of death. not the morons who keep going at the same hand that feeds them make believe ...

Re:Aaaah. unbridled capitalism. (1)

HungryHobo (1314109) | more than 3 years ago | (#35207538)

I think you may not understand the slashdot modderation system.
change your view so that you can see -1 comments and you'll realise that the person you're responding to wasn't talking about your post but rather one between yours and his.

Check out this fat slut (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35206868)

http://www.macombdaily.com/articles/2011/02/14/news/doc4d5930a6adcfc168459127.txt [macombdaily.com]

Finally, one of those manatees that thinks being morbidly fat is an excuse to ride an electric scooter around the store got what was coming to it.

Re:Check out this fat slut (1)

unity100 (970058) | more than 3 years ago | (#35207240)

and relevance is ?

Re:Aaaah. unbridled capitalism. (2)

h00manist (800926) | more than 3 years ago | (#35207344)

you can lie, you can deceive, you can screw customers, you can fraud, you can scam, but still in the end you can come up right, because they are allowed in the system - you just need to arrange your ToSes, legal clauses properly, and have a good legal team that the unwashed masses wont be able to buy.

Yes. And members of these unwashed masses who can see the origins of the problem have a responsibility to propose workarounds to their instruments of monopoly. There are many in my view, they all just require organization by lots of people.

Re:Aaaah. unbridled capitalism. (0, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35207640)

ahhh unbridled piracy

You can justify it with some hand wavy stallmanesque bullshit, brag about being anonymous, pretend its some sort of 'stick it to the man' crud, but at the end of the day, we know it's just arrogant tight assed self righteous pricks who expect everyone else to subsidise their entertianment.

grow up you fucking moron

Re:Aaaah. unbridled capitalism. (3, Interesting)

c6gunner (950153) | more than 3 years ago | (#35208546)

you can lie, you can deceive, you can screw customers, you can fraud, you can scam, but still in the end you can come up right, because they are allowed in the system - you just need to arrange your ToSes, legal clauses properly, and have a good legal team that the unwashed masses wont be able to buy.

Well, of course. As long as customers are willing to put up with your antics, why WOULDN'T you do such things?

The problem isn't capitalism; the problem is consumerism. People can bleat about the Big Bad Companies all they want, but as long as you keep buying those Miley Cyrus CD's and that Titanic Super Extreme Directors Cut Blueray Collectors Edition With 23 Bonus Seconds of DeCaprio Drowning, you ARE the problem.

Ugh... (5, Insightful)

andreyvul (1176115) | more than 3 years ago | (#35206694)

This shit again?

Seriously, if downloading was hurting the labels as much as their FUD machine states, then I'd find a way to pay for a T3 line and use it solely for seedboxing purposes.

Because I will get a huge smile on my face once this scourge goes broke, fucks off, and dies, preferably in burning cyanide.

Re:Ugh... (1)

h00manist (800926) | more than 3 years ago | (#35207360)

This shit again?

Seriously, if downloading was hurting the labels as much as their FUD machine states, then I'd find a way to pay for a T3 line and use it solely for seedboxing purposes.

Because I will get a huge smile on my face once this scourge goes broke, fucks off, and dies, preferably in burning cyanide.

Hmm. That would become more likely if the paths leading to purchase of their stuff was littered with signs pointing out how to get the same things for zero.

Re:Ugh... (3, Insightful)

erroneus (253617) | more than 3 years ago | (#35207532)

It hurts their future plans.

Look. When all this really started happening, the publishers insisted that they had no plan, intention or desire to do anything over the internet. The rest of the world said "fine... we will." and the consumers around the world started to consume. The publishers took notice. They didn't see "loss" because there never was any. What they saw was "people publishing with little to no overhead."

THIS is what the publishers want -- the market for media and content published on the internet. It's cheap to publish and they want to control it. Trouble is, the genie is already out of the bottle and they are trying to stuff it back in with law suits. Funny thing is, they turned a fringe activity into a mainstream one with their law suits against P2P sharing software makers. Suddenly, a market was made famous by legal actions and the mainstream took notice. Before the Napster and other suits, P2P sharing was more of a fringe activity. Now it's a huge part of the usage of the internet. (was that an eventuality or was the streissand effect at play?)

So yes, it hurts the content publishers in the future sense. It does not hurt them in the present sense. They have great difficulty "proving" they are hurt in the present sense and it is impossible to prove they are being hurt in the future sense. They want to control publishing on the internet and everything they have done so far seems to indicate that desire. Being able to accomplish that goal seems, at the moment, pretty impossible. But they are continuing to buy laws and politicians and making our lives a LOT more difficult and unpleasant in the process.

Re:Ugh... (1)

peragrin (659227) | more than 3 years ago | (#35208034)

what future plans?

both the *AA's don't have future plans they just keep on using the same old thing and never doing anything new.

If the RIAA had embraced Napster or at least MP3's selling singles in 1999 then the single music download piece wouldn't have happened as badly.

instead they waited half a decade, and lost a whole generation because of their stupid games.

Re:Ugh... (1)

tbannist (230135) | more than 3 years ago | (#35208564)

Oh, the *AA's have future plans... They just all involve busty hookers, cocaine, and rolling around on large piles of money.

But didn't they say our copyright laws are weak? (4, Insightful)

SkepticalJ (1996446) | more than 3 years ago | (#35206700)

From http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/5636/135/ [michaelgeist.ca] : "The lawsuit may come as a surprise to politicians and other observers accustomed to hearing that Canada does not have the legal tools to address online infringement, yet that perception has always been more myth than reality. As the isoHunt lawsuit demonstrates, the legal power to combat online infringement has existed within Canadian copyright law for years. It has been the industry’s reluctance to wield those powers – not their absence – that may have allowed infringing websites to call Canada home."

Cheapskates (5, Interesting)

Mathinker (909784) | more than 3 years ago | (#35206958)

You missed the part in the discussion which points out that the probable reason why the labels didn't bring the suit previously was because they prefer that legislation make it much cheaper for them to enforce their copyrights. I wouldn't be surprised if the timing of this lawsuit is designed to maximize its nuisance value versus its legal expenses --- if the industry is convinced that the new bill will pass in the near future, maybe they are hoping they can cause a lot of legal expense for Isohunt in the near term, and then suddenly be able to "refile" because the the change in the legislative landscape after the passage of the bill.

A comment on the blog quoted an industry source:

I quote Danielle Parr, executive director of the Entertainment Software Association of Canada, who says exceptions to the protection of digital locks wonâ(TM)t work. "When you create a big hole in the law that people can drive through, the onus is suddenly placed right on the copyright creator to prove the infringement."

I had thought that the Canadian Supreme Court has already ruled that fair use is a right of the consumer, so how can this law be viable? Or does legislation always override previous judicial decisions in Canada?

<sigh/>When will the industry figure out that Whack-a-Mole isn't going to work?

Re:Cheapskates (4, Informative)

dryeo (100693) | more than 3 years ago | (#35207246)

IIRC it was the Court of Appeals (second highest court) that ruled that sharing music was legal. The CRIA were scared to take it to the Supreme Court.
I believe in most countries the legislature can update the laws to work around judicial decisions, at least as long as it doesn't conflict with any existing bill of rights or in our case charter of rights and freedoms. Our charter of rights also has a lot of weasel wording, section 1, the reasonable limits clause (in practice the States have the same thing) and section 33, the not withstanding clause.
The notwithstanding clause allows the government (federal or provincial) to override any right or freedom for up to 5 years at a shot. Only seriously used for the Quebec Language sign law so far.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Charter_of_Rights_and_Freedoms [wikipedia.org]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_One_of_the_Canadian_Charter_of_Rights_and_Freedoms [wikipedia.org]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_Thirty-three_of_the_Canadian_Charter_of_Rights_and_Freedoms [wikipedia.org]

Re:Cheapskates (1)

rikkards (98006) | more than 3 years ago | (#35207932)

And from what I recall the only reason they deemed music sharing legal was because of the CD Levy. I think if ISOHunt only provided music they would be ok but since they provide access to everything they could. Let me followup with the fact that technically Google is in the same boat but yet I doubt the CRIA will take them on.

BUT the only provide a link (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35208332)

BUT the only provide a link and not the infringing material and as we know linking is as a judge recently said up to the user visiting the links responsibility NOT hte poster of the link.
and you add further smashing to the suit buy the blank MEDIA levy.
Supreme court affirmed that sharing music was ok because that media suit was about music, is not tv and movies also media?
AND any sane person would say yes and , if i am placing said stuff into a pending directory to be placed on blank media that has a levy i should then be legally covered.

case dismissed

Re:Cheapskates (4, Insightful)

Spad (470073) | more than 3 years ago | (#35207742)

...the onus is suddenly placed right on the copyright creator to prove the infringement.

Isn't that kind of how the law is supposed to work? You know, the guy making the accusation has to prove that the other person did it (to whatever standard is required by the court), otherwise you end up with things like the retarded libel system we have in the UK where you can accuse anyone you like of anything you want and if they can't prove that they're not guilty then you win, regardless of what evidence you have.

isohunt is obsolete (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35206716)

I prefer cunt hunt.

One day, sooner than we all think... (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35206738)

One day, sooner than we all think, we will all be able to download every single piece of digitizable human culture ever created in under an hr. It will fit on an external hardrive easily purchased for 16hrs of minimum wage labour. The marginal cost of distribution is rapidly approaching zero.

What lies beneath the event horizon of a black hole? Decent people shouldn't think to much about that.

Re:One day, sooner than we all think... (1)

monkyyy (1901940) | more than 3 years ago | (#35206802)

no, content and culture are both growing quickly as well and at higher quality, while it will happen, its not soon

Re:One day, sooner than we all think... (2)

Vanderhoth (1582661) | more than 3 years ago | (#35207966)

For sure content is growing quickly.

As for culture, Every time I see an ad for Justin Bieber I wonder.

Re:One day, sooner than we all think... (1)

SuperKendall (25149) | more than 3 years ago | (#35206896)

Sorry to break it to you pal but media is getting larger while bandwidth to home stagnates. The reality is that bandwidth costs money, costs go down over time but slower than media sizes increase.

Re:One day, sooner than we all think... (1)

Maxo-Texas (864189) | more than 3 years ago | (#35207126)

This changed as of netflix.

I went from 38up / 300 down to 280 up / 980 down without any change in cost.

Things come down instantly now.

Big service in Texas. Don't really want to advertise for them tho.

Re:One day, sooner than we all think... (2)

dryeo (100693) | more than 3 years ago | (#35207202)

Yea, netflix changed things in Canada too. Very low limits introduced, 3GBs IIRC with a $2 charge per GB for going over.
With an election approaching the government overrode the new rules but I'm sure they'll revert once the election is over.

Re:One day, sooner than we all think... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35208330)

Nice quote from a great game! Thanks for making me smile in the middle of the workday.

Let them win!!! (3, Insightful)

future assassin (639396) | more than 3 years ago | (#35206752)

Since isoHut is just a search engine any win for the record labels would royally fuck search engine usage in Canada. Just like with UBB consumer rage will follow, which really sucks that it has to come to that in order for joe average to notice they are getting a Shaftner.

Re:Let them win!!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35206776)

Agreed, lets let UBB, Bill C-32, and this lawsuit go forward. Our universities can then go back to teaching us how to make candles, hunt for pelts, farm, and push logs down rivers. So much for moving forward.

Re:Let them win!!! (2)

gman003 (1693318) | more than 3 years ago | (#35206820)

Unfortunately, this isn't exactly the case. Sure, if isoHunt simply provided a searchable index of torrents, they should be able to claim ignorance of any wrongdoing, with the whole "safe harbor" argument, but there's a flaw in that: they did more. Several times when I visited, they had an "editor's pick" or something like that, which was invariably something pirated (and blatantly so), with a description that pretty much shouted "this file is illegal!". That's not just "refusing to take down pirated material", that goes into "actively distributing". You could probably get a conviction for conspiracy based on that.

Of course, if the Canadian MAFIIA is anything like the American one (word-of-mouth is that it's actually worse), I'd have to side with isoHunt simply out of spite.

Re:Let them win!!! (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35207052)

The problem is they were not distributing. You keep saying that and others implying. They were linking to torrent files. Even hosting torrent files is not hosting pirated content. It is also not up to them to determine the legality of content. It is the poster. The editor did not post it. It is up to the copyright owner to point out what is unauthorised. That is the idea anyway. Contributory infringement can be argued. However if you understand how this work they were not infringing any copyright. At best they were encouraging people to infringe. However it has not been proven that they knew it was infringing. Until you have a report brought to you by the copyright owner you can't know if it was or was not infringing. Otherwise they would have to verify with the copyright office who the owner is and vet every single torret on the net. That is insane. Google does not have to vet sites for copyright. Only remove when they are notified of it. Even that is questionable. It has only gotten so far in the courts as to if linking is infringement. The closest we have is a Napster case. Maybe 2600 although that didn't get very high up in the courts. It could have been appealed and was not. If Google links to sites which infringe they are not liable. Merely linking to content is not infringement. Nobody clearly notified ISOHunt of any of the posted files.

Re:Let them win!!! (1, Troll)

mini me (132455) | more than 3 years ago | (#35207230)

It is well known that Google will hand edit search results so that particular content comes first or otherwise make the result more prominent. Google has no more copyright claim to the websites it links to than IsoHunt does to the torrents it links to. If IsoHunt is breaking the law, Google most certainly is as well.

Does CRIA own the copyright to the torrents? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35207902)

Does CRIA own the copyright to the torrents? If not, there's no copyright infringement going on at IsoHunt.

Re:Let them win!!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35206930)

Never give up a freedom. Make them take it from you. Look at the mess to the south, if you need an example. The better approach is to shove them as far down as possible, and let them decide if they want to stay, playing by our rules, after that.

Re:Let them win!!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35206948)

I've just found another Torrent Search site in Canada
http://www.google.ca/cse/home?cx=003849996876419856805:erhhdbygrma
Will they be sued too ?

Re:Let them win!!! (1)

TheFakeMcCoy (1485631) | more than 3 years ago | (#35208572)

Yea old ISO hunt maybe that's somethign to go after.. new ISO hunt i dont even use anymore, and I almost bought one of their T-Shirts once

This... (3, Insightful)

Barrinmw (1791848) | more than 3 years ago | (#35206796)

...is why I don't buy music.

Re:This... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35207138)

I don't even listen to music. I find I don't have the time. Surely I'm not alone.

Re:This... (2)

dryeo (100693) | more than 3 years ago | (#35207272)

I buy it from the thrift store and occasionally garage sales. The Mennonites who run the local thrift store do good work and I don't mind supporting them.

Re:This... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35207758)

I get mine on stone tablets, from the Isrealites.

Re:This... (2)

Nerdfest (867930) | more than 3 years ago | (#35208102)

I've switched to Jamendo [jamendo.com] and other such independent music sites. Completely free, and there's a lot of good music. You get the added bonus of searching for what you like yourself, rather than having what the record companies deem "popular" pushed at you all day.

wtf? (1)

mirix (1649853) | more than 3 years ago | (#35206824)

...weeks before Canada introduced the Canadian DMCA...

Christ, I leave the basement for a month and this is what happens? I thought someone else was watching out for this. They always told me girlfriends were dangerous.

Hmmm. I searched and it looks like it's just a bill. Nothing has passed?

Re:wtf? (3, Interesting)

creativeHavoc (1052138) | more than 3 years ago | (#35206996)

Nothing passed, this is a third try. Bill C-32

Re:wtf? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35207812)

... doesn't mean it can't pass. I only found out about the bill AFTER the deadline for public input had already passed!
Part of me wonders if the current UBB stuff is being used deliberately as a smokescreen to take heat off the bill. :|

It will sink (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35206892)

The suite doesn't look like multi million dollar lawsuite for a simply fact that it's not factually correct. It will sink, even if it will go on first appeal will bust it

Is it still run by a teenager? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35206994)

I remember reading about the teenage kid who ran this site years ago in a local Richmond BC paper years ago. I seem to remember he was being sued or being threated by law suits back then. Me and my non-tech friends thought that kid was awesome!

Scrap the CD-R levy then. (5, Informative)

QJimbo (779370) | more than 3 years ago | (#35207068)

Greedy record companies can't have it both ways.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_copying_levy#Canada [wikipedia.org]

Re:Scrap the CD-R levy then. (1)

AmonTheMetalhead (1277044) | more than 3 years ago | (#35207750)

They disagree with you. And Canada isn't the only country with that legal theft law, here in Belgium there is a levy on any media you buy that gets divided between the most successful artists.

The reasoning is that the most successful artists are the most pirated, so the rich get richer still and the really good musicians, they are kept in the dark shadows. They can shove their commercial autotuned shit and shove it up their rectum.

Re:Scrap the CD-R levy then. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35208070)

wtf. appearantly noone in the u.s. should be worried either:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_copying_levy#United_States

Secret? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35207076)

How do you file a massive lawsuit secretly?

That secret part didn't work out particularly well considering it's posted on /.

Characterizations (2, Informative)

dontmakemethink (1186169) | more than 3 years ago | (#35207130)

These people are devious, selfish, resourceful, and have no respect for the law.

The above statement is about:
A - record labels
B - people who download music illegitimately
C - people who distribute music illegitimately
D - EVERYONE EXCEPT US MUSICIANS

When the labels don't get paid, they take fewer and fewer risks on new talent, and the result is that the only music that gets promoted is over-produced over-hyped generic dogshit. Anyone catch that Superbowl halftime show? That's what happens when real talent goes unrewarded.

BTW my friend is about to be signed, here's a song about how difficult the industry has become [youtube.com] . If a hottie with pipes like this going unsigned for 10 years doesn't convince you that piracy is killing the industry, nothing will. Gene Simmons called her "the best unsigned singer out there", she's being called "Amy Winehouse without the baggage" and "a super-hot Susan Boyle" by industry-leading agents and label reps.

Re:Characterizations (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35207158)

If a hottie with pipes like this going unsigned for 10 years doesn't convince you that piracy is killing the industry, nothing will.

Cause: capitalism.

Re:Characterizations (5, Insightful)

whoever57 (658626) | more than 3 years ago | (#35207216)

BTW my friend is about to be signed, here's a song about how difficult the industry has become. If a hottie with pipes like this going unsigned for 10 years doesn't convince you that piracy is killing the industry, nothing will.

Why connection is there between this unsigned singer and piracy? In your post, I see only unsupported assertions on a connection between piracy and risk-taking.

I suspect that the problem for artists is that there is always another artist who is just that little bit more desperate to be signed. Labels love control and they sign the artists that can be most easily controlled. Those artists that are created by labels -- how much does the money distribution favor the artists versus the labels, when compared to an artist that has already established some level of support and fame? In other words, there is a strong financial incentive to create and sign acts rather than discovering artists. .

This post is full of speculative suggestions, but I will assert that it has as much evidential basis as yours (ie. none!).

Re:Characterizations (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35207238)

I can't help but laugh every time I hear "artists" bitching about not being able to make a living.

Re:Characterizations (2, Insightful)

Scarletdown (886459) | more than 3 years ago | (#35207284)

BTW my friend is about to be signed, here's a song about how difficult the industry has become [youtube.com] . If a hottie with pipes like this going unsigned for 10 years doesn't convince you that piracy is killing the industry, nothing will. Gene Simmons called her "the best unsigned singer out there", she's being called "Amy Winehouse without the baggage" and "a super-hot Susan Boyle" by industry-leading agents and label reps.

She seems talented enough that she should not need to rely on being signed by a label. She can make it fine on her own, one would think.

Re:Characterizations (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35207440)

exactly. Why be bullied by these big labels when you can sell your own music independently. Its possible to make similiar profits without the stress and "creative enslavement" of a corporate record label. A good example of this is John Butler.

Re:Characterizations (1)

AmonTheMetalhead (1277044) | more than 3 years ago | (#35207820)

BTW my friend is about to be signed, here's a song about how difficult the industry has become [youtube.com] . If a hottie with pipes like this going unsigned for 10 years doesn't convince you that piracy is killing the industry, nothing will. Gene Simmons called her "the best unsigned singer out there", she's being called "Amy Winehouse without the baggage" and "a super-hot Susan Boyle" by industry-leading agents and label reps.

She seems talented enough that she should not need to rely on being signed by a label. She can make it fine on her own, one would think.

Who needs labels these days? There's a studio around every corner and everyone can get a CD mastered these days, and if you use music sites you get to promote your work globally for free, get your fans in gear and you have a marketing force, tour a bit and people will notice you if you're good.

Re:Characterizations (5, Insightful)

mini me (132455) | more than 3 years ago | (#35207288)

Something doesn't add up. Gene Simmons has his own record label. Why would he turn down the opportunity to sign, by his own admission, the best person he can possibly work with?

Re:Characterizations (2)

L4t3r4lu5 (1216702) | more than 3 years ago | (#35207570)

Labels have audiences. She probably wouldn't be signed up on Roadrunner Records either, even if the dude at the top said she was pretty good.

Re:Characterizations (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35208246)

Only small labels sign musicians from specific genres to serve niche audiences. The big labels all have multiple imprints that cater to different tastes. No exec worth his salt would pass on solid talent over something as trivial as that. I mean, how many times have they signed musicians only to try and mold them into whatever it is they think their audience will pay the most money for? A record label passing on a goldmine because they don't have the audience is like a track star running around hurdles.

Re:Characterizations (5, Interesting)

dryeo (100693) | more than 3 years ago | (#35207300)

B - people who download music illegitimately

How do you download music illegitimately (in Canada). Buy a blank CD and the record companies get a cut, so they're getting paid for people doing backups, copying their legitimately copyrighted photos to a CD and so on. This caused the courts to rule that sharing music is not illegal.
 

Re:Characterizations (2)

Richard_at_work (517087) | more than 3 years ago | (#35207434)

Out of interest, how many torrents end up on a cd-r or DVD-r? I haven't personally bought a spindle in 5 years, or burned a DVD in the last year.

Re:Characterizations (5, Informative)

janek78 (861508) | more than 3 years ago | (#35207546)

I don't know about Canada, but here (EU, Czech Republic) we pay the levy for hard drives, USB flash disks, copiers,... Except for blank paper, I believe they have it covered. So it's hard to feel quilty when your new hard drive comes "pre-paid".

Re:Characterizations (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35207596)

Same here in Switzerland. 1/3 of the price of a 160 GB music player is the stupid levy. Thats about $100, folks!

Re:Characterizations (1)

AmonTheMetalhead (1277044) | more than 3 years ago | (#35207828)

The levy for blank paper is included in the price of the printer, at least it is in Belgium. Buy a multifunction device that can print & scan, and you get to pay a nice copyright tax on it, you just might be copying books! /sarcasm

Re:Characterizations (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35208126)

99.9% of all the CD-R and DVD-R I've ever bought have nothing but my own copyrighted data on them. I guess I should consider my levy contribution a donation to the music industry.

Re:Characterizations (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35207628)

B - people who download music illegitimately

How do you download music illegitimately (in Canada). Buy a blank CD and the record companies get a cut

Which companies get a cut for an unsigned artist?

Re:Characterizations (1)

AmonTheMetalhead (1277044) | more than 3 years ago | (#35207846)

You must be joking, the unsigned artists should be glad they still get to sing every now and then without being sued to the grave!

Re:Characterizations (1)

AmonTheMetalhead (1277044) | more than 3 years ago | (#35207824)

There is a similar thing in Belgium, i can't go out and buy a freaking SD Card for my camera without money going to the labels. Fuck That

Re:Characterizations (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35207404)

+1 informative - good luck

Re:Characterizations (1)

SilentMobius (10171) | more than 3 years ago | (#35207648)

Right, the only way to make money as a talented person is to ensure that corporate music is screwing _so many_ other artists that they have enough left over cash to throw at someone they consider a "50/50" or less bet?

That song sound like its about a shitty industry that has been shitty for 40+ years, the notion that copyright infringement is what has made it shitty is laughable.

BTW, its a great song and she has a great voice, I'll see if I can buy some of her work as long as I can get it straight from her and not through a label.

Re:Characterizations (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35207760)

You mention 'hotties, Gene Simmons, Amy Winehouse, and Susan Boyle'. And the law. And 'hotties' and 'pipes'. Please understand my lack of respect, and (apparently first and foremost in your head) my money.

Re:Characterizations (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35207788)

That's the most illogical BS I've read in a long time. You start by saying labels are screwing new talent, then go on to say your friend is trying to get in with a label. She needs to grow the fuck up and market her own stuff if the label won't do it for her. THAT is what the internet is for, and part of why your friend is failing is that she's trying to get into the same niche (with the same crap music and style) as a million other wannabes. She should carve her own niche online, running it like a business with loans if necessary, or finding a modern, net-focused label that'll work with her.

If you're failing with new tech, it's because you're not using it right, the same way a weaver failed if (s)he didn't up her game during the industrial revolution.

Re:Characterizations (1)

AmonTheMetalhead (1277044) | more than 3 years ago | (#35207804)

These people are devious, selfish, resourceful, and have no respect for the law.

The above statement is about: A - record labels B - people who download music illegitimately C - people who distribute music illegitimately D - EVERYONE EXCEPT US MUSICIANS

When the labels don't get paid, they take fewer and fewer risks on new talent, and the result is that the only music that gets promoted is over-produced over-hyped generic dogshit. Anyone catch that Superbowl halftime show? That's what happens when real talent goes unrewarded.

BTW my friend is about to be signed, here's a song about how difficult the industry has become [youtube.com] . If a hottie with pipes like this going unsigned for 10 years doesn't convince you that piracy is killing the industry, nothing will. Gene Simmons called her "the best unsigned singer out there", she's being called "Amy Winehouse without the baggage" and "a super-hot Susan Boyle" by industry-leading agents and label reps.

I disagree with your reasoning here, mainstream music has always mostly been shit, for every Rolling Stones they do sign there are a thousand other smaller bands just as awesome, this has been the case for as long as i can remember, and i have the memory of an elephant.

Piracy isn't killing the music industry, the music industry is killing itself. I own hundreds of Cd's, and only a small percentage of those are major labels, all the rest i bought directly from the artists themselves at gigs. I have access to torrents, and i do download Cd's, but if the CD i downloaded is good, I'll end up buying the CD.

If i look at my last.fm charts, i notice how much of the music i play is either years old or obscure, 1% is probably mainstream, if the big labels want to sell to me, they'll have to sell good music instead of enforcing laws that gives them levies on blank Cd's or laws that take my rights away.

As for your friend, it's not bad, but i like her [youtube.com] better ;)

Re:Characterizations (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35208094)

So the music you like is good music because you like it but the music that is bought by more people is bad music because you don't like it?

Re:Characterizations (1)

night_flyer (453866) | more than 3 years ago | (#35208160)

more people eat at McDonald's than the local steakhouse, does that mean McDonald's is superior?

Sing for your supper like everyone else. (2)

joebob2000 (840395) | more than 3 years ago | (#35207898)

Want money? go play gigs. Why is it a god given right to get rich off a few songs or get money for the rest of your life for performances over a short period of time. Same with software, etc. Someone still has to work to make the food that artists living off IP eat. Sounds like a great situation to be in, but getting on a moral high horse about your god-given right to hit the jackpot and be supported in luxury by society for the rest of your life is a stretch.

One day's work for one day's pay. No need for labels, copyrights, etc. Most people work under that system (jobs) and it does not require locking up college kids for downloading something that has an average economic shelf life of a couple weeks.

Re:Characterizations (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35207920)

BTW my friend is about to be signed, here's a song about how difficult the industry has become [youtube.com] . If a hottie with pipes like this going unsigned for 10 years doesn't convince you that piracy is killing the industry, nothing will. Gene Simmons called her "the best unsigned singer out there", she's being called "Amy Winehouse without the baggage" and "a super-hot Susan Boyle" by industry-leading agents and label reps.

I'd pay more than an album's worth to go watch her sing live. I would not buy her album though I just don't listen to this style of music often. Musicians used to make money by doing live shows and the albums were just nice added money (James Brown and his band used to do over 300 shows per year).

Re:Characterizations (1)

Legion303 (97901) | more than 3 years ago | (#35207926)

"and the result is that the only music that gets promoted is over-produced over-hyped generic dogshit."

So business as usual, then, like they've been doing for the past 50 years. Gotcha.

Re:Characterizations (1)

Posting=!Working (197779) | more than 3 years ago | (#35207972)

"If a hottie with pipes like this going unsigned for 10 years doesn't convince you that piracy is killing the industry, nothing will. "

WTF? That is a HUGE irrational logical jump there.

There are hundreds of possible reasons she hasn't been signed, none of which are 'piracy is killing the industry." She could be a complete bitch and pissed off the wrong people. She could be completely unrealistic about a deal. Hot and talented singers are not that rare, I know quite a few - that's not all it takes. There are some that still can't draw a crowd. Maybe her songwriting sucks. There's way too many probable and possible reasons that she isn't signed to jump to the near impossible conclusion that piracy is to blame for her not being signed. If piracy caused record labels to cut the number of people signed in half, that only would have dropped her chance of being signed by a major label from 0.00002% to 0.00001%.

No offense to your friend, but if Gene Simmons and "industry-leading agents and label reps" said all that and she still didn't get signed, they were just being nice. If they really thought that, there would have been no need to post this, she would have had a deal already.

The drop in production costs means there is more music available from more bands than ever before, and nearly all of I can get right now without leaving my couch. The music industry is better than it has ever been in history. It's just the huge record labels that are fucked.

Re:Characterizations (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35208004)

Why does she even need to be "signed"?

Also, yes, she can sing, but that's not *terribly* uncommon. I mean, not as common as having feet or a self-centric opinion, but still kinda common.... like 5-to-15-%-of-society common, which is actually a LOT of people. Maybe people just aren't buying what they don't need. I'm not convinced piracy is to blame for that, or that any blame is even necessary. Times change.

For example, more artists sell CDs on their personal websites than ever, and others give material away for free on youtube. I can spend all day watching breathtaking amateur stuff online (not piracy!). Why would I buy music? Will the CRIA or RIAA start suing people who don't charge anything for their original art on the claim that it cuts into their forecasted sales? Maybe career-creativity is no longer viable long-term simply from so many people creating for nothing... Shall we shut down the Internet to stop these industry-destroyers?

I guess nothing will convince me.

Oh cry me a river (2)

SmallFurryCreature (593017) | more than 3 years ago | (#35208100)

Really, go and cry me a river.

NOBODY OWNS YOU A LIVING. There is no law anywhere that states you have some inalienable right to make your living the way you want to. You can TRY in any free nation but NOWHERE is success guaranteed.

I want to make a living as a male escort, ergo all you men who are giving sex away for free or worse PAYING for it are stealing the bread out of my mouth, you rapists are even worse!

Oh, that is my problem? Well then your friend not being signed up by some massive record label for a huge budget is NOT my problem either.

Do you buy your bread from the supermarket? What about the dreams of a guy/girl who wanted to become a baker and own their own little store making fresh tasty bread every day? No, but you buy it from the supermarket don't you. THIEF!

Times change, used to be that some people got lucky (talent never had anything to do with it) and got signed up and made it big. That is nice. But there always been far more that didn't make it.

Oh and there is such a thing as independ labels or even doing it yourself. Countless bands play purely for the love it and try to recoup some of the costs by apparearing at small events and selling a handfull of self made CD's. That not good enough for your friend? Then she ain't in it for the love of music but is just a money sucking whore who didn't get signed because she didn't suck enough dick.

Really, this is like coal-miners protesting about the closure of mines or the protests about the motor car ruining the horse trade. Except that the death of the mass music industry will only affect sell outs and shills. So cry me a river because I won't be shedding a tear.

Re:Oh cry me a river (1)

Combatso (1793216) | more than 3 years ago | (#35208418)

just to let you know, i read that comment to the tune of "Drift Away"... and smiled

open source tv - pioneer one (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35208384)

open source tv - pioneer one, via donations has paid fo r6 eps so far to get made.
radio head proved donation based makes them more money
Linux open source software proves free can work and be profitable.

oh no whats next open source style pioneer one doantion movies?
give me 3dsmax let me make money and ill buy said software.
give me DMCA and ill do nothing and you can lose all round.

And your comment lends me to think maybe you should be downloading more prono. Last i checked you as a musican should not care so much about a person being hot as the music is good.
IF the artist is so good put out the best track and see if people will buy the rest at 50 cents a track off your own website.
CUT out the middle man is what this entire movement is about.

Anything gene simmons says is moot , he after all wants kids to get raped in jails.

Re:Characterizations (1)

multipartmixed (163409) | more than 3 years ago | (#35208454)

> If a hottie with pipes like this going unsigned for 10 years doesn't
> convince you that piracy is killing the industry, nothing will.

This year's Grammy for "Best Album" was awarded to a Canadian band that is not signed to a major record label.

This is a tough, transitional period but -- mark my words -- the major studios are on their way out.

And your friend is probably unsigned because the studios don't have A&R men any more. They have computers that listen to songs and decide if you sound enough like the Black Eyed Peas to be "awarded" an eggregious contract or not.

The content industry, lying to manipulate you? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35207544)

Surely this is unprecedented in the history of mass media.

Onus (2)

Fnord666 (889225) | more than 3 years ago | (#35208320)

"...the onus is suddenly placed right on the copyright creator to prove the infringement."

Wait, what? Isn't the onus already on the copyright holder to prove infringement?

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...