Well it's a good thing that our conservative government has decided to stick up for the average blue collar recording industry exec with their newly proposed copyright law. I don’t know what consumers they got to tell them that a $500 fine for illegally downloading a $1 mp3 is fair. I would like to see any punishment which is 500 times more severe than the damage caused hold up in court. Why don’t we charge polluters or fraudsters 500 times the damage they have caused? Wouldn’t that be a deterrent to any fraud, or neglect of other laws? Why is the government sticking up for a business model that is on its deathbed instead of just letting it die?
Don’t buy anymore new music. Listen to what you already have. Go to a used CD store and pick up some of the CDs from your youth that you never got around to buying. Go see your favourite bands in person and buy their merch at the show. Do all you can to keep your money out of the pockets of the RIAA and their ilk. If their business model depends on suing their customers, and force feeding us their disposable music, it's time for change, and the only people who can do it are the people still paying for music.
Artists make music because they enjoy it. Music will continue to be made even if the record companies don’t sell another album.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
Music is, in the words of my friend Simon, an anthropological fact. So i agree that, contrasting a popular 60s adage, the music will never die. However, much of contemporary entertainment relies on patents. When a new and upcoming band, lets just say the Arkells who site can be found at www.myspace.com/arkellsmusic
if this band churns out a couple of hits, like some other indie bands, and when their time in the spotlight is done, what- financially- will they have to fall back on...? Canada's indie scene, while being the talk of the town (refer to stuffwhitepeoplelike.com), is not guaranteeing its artists a great standard of living (a relatively well-known band, Alexisonfire still RENTS, have not bought a house and live together in St. Catherine's). I guess my point is, as it is, life as a musician is already tough- as it probably should be- nonetheless, is downloading music making it tougher? think of all those indie bands that are on you ipod, but not on the radio? How did you get their music- downloading...? I guess i am puzzled about this issue. All i'll say is that its not as clear cut as the racist blogger makes it out to be.
let me preempt a rebut. Yes, indie bands must keep working to continue to earn a good standard of living; but does them, putting togehter an album every couple of months, like some mainstream artists, make for better or worse, art?
To play the devil's advocate, there are plenty of victimless crimes that have much steeper penalties. The other issue will be the level of enforcement. In particular, whether it's going to be like speeding and drug possession where large percentages of the population break the law, but only a small number are actually ever punished.
That said, young bands need to realize that they are far better off to release their music independently on somewhere like iTunes whether than to sign with a major label. There's a reason that many big name groups are leaving the labels for alternate distribution systems.
My opinion may be invalid here as I pay for music but...
I like parts of the amendment to the copyright act more in principle than in execution. Please pay artists for their effort and work. They appreciate it, despite the alleged nobility of pursuing the arts for the sake of the arts. As someone who has a parent who is a visual artist, I know that she would keep on painting even if she never sold another piece, but to part with a piece of work can be tough, and financial compensation does at least give the impression that someone out there appreciates their work enough to part with cash for it (the metric by which all value is measured in our society). Not to mention paying for heating bills, rent, food, and all those other luxuries.
That being said, some elements of this amendment are bunk. A $500fine is arguably disproportionate to teh harm incurred by a single illegal download. Somethign closer to market value would be more appropriate and in the spirit of our legal system. Furthermore, I am dissatisfied with the notion of fines. I'd like to see levies on electronic media and player/recorder devices actaully go to artists. Deterrence in the form of fines is fine (to a degree) but it doesn't remedy the harm done to artists, and the notion that the state is an injured party in this context is odd to say the least.
Now, regarding digital locks or management-rights software or whatever one calls it, the provisions in the bill on those are troubling. As far as I understand some of these provisions effectively criminalize sofware used by IT security folks, and overall these provisions seem liek they may be in some ways commercially limiting, or even prohibitive to artists who wish to exploit the digital realm to promote and sell their works. No unlocking cell phones? Good luck.
Post a Comment