[d@DCC] Editorial: Music sharing lives on

[Russell McOrmond]

This is in reply to:
http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&call_pageid=971358637177&c=Article&cid=1080861010415

-- 
 Russell McOrmond, Internet Consultant: <http://www.flora.ca/> 
 "Make it legal: don't litigate, use creative licensing" campaign.
 A modern answer to P2P: http://www.flora.ca/makelegal200403.shtml
 Canadian File-sharing Legal Information Network http://www.canfli.org/

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Fri, 02 Apr 2004 22:31:38 -0500
From: Russell McOrmond <russell at flora.ca>
To: lettertoed at thestar.ca
Subject: Editorial: Music sharing lives on

   It is great that you agree that copyright is economic public policy, 
and should be analyzed that way.

   While I am not sympathetic to those who call it "sharing" when they 
communicate something that they do not own, I am also not sympathetic to 
those who call it "theft" when someone infringes copyright.

   There are solutions to the problems which the recording industry has 
observed, but these are largely problems of their own creation.  They 
claim that non-commercial peer-to-peer is the source of their problems, 
but I can think of many alternatives that happened around the same time 
as when their sales were supposedly harmed by P2P.

When the industry was claiming about a 10-15% reduction in sales:

   a) A reduction in 'new titles' by possibly 20-25%, which should have 
resulted in a loss of about the same amount given the bulk of sales is 
made off new releases

   b) Chilling effects on impulse purchases caused by "copy protected" 
CDs which do not work in all audio equipment.

   c) General economic downturns right around the same time.

   d) Youth markets switching from headphones to cellphones

   e) People boycotting the large labels because of their attacks on 
their own customers.  I started my boycott of the big labels in 2000 and 
haven't bought from them since. 
http://weblog.flora.org/article.php3?story_id=120

   f) Internet has caused music tastes to diversify. I don't have the 
number handy but "world music" as a genre has increased which means that 
so-called "foreign" and independent labels (Independent from the North 
American cartels) will be the beneficiary of this trend.


I could go on, but any of these alternative explanations alone could 
account for 10-15% reduction in sales to the legacy recording industry. 
  If anything the P2P distribution of music should be understood in the 
context of free advertising for music which fans are obviously going out 
and buying.


   Instead of music fans being hunted down by CRIA, CRIA should be 
paying them for their obviously highly successful marketing efforts.


P.S.  While I believe that non-commercial P2P helps sales, it should be 
the choice of the copyright holder whether they receive this benefit or 
not.  I wish people would stop distributing CRIA owned works and just 
allow these businesses to fail on their own.


   The following press release includes an indy label who has made their 
works legal to share on P2P.

  "Make it legal: don't litigate, use creative licensing" campaign.
  A modern answer to P2P: http://www.flora.ca/makelegal200403.shtml



-- 
  Russell McOrmond, Internet Consultant: <http://www.flora.ca/>
  "Make it legal: don't litigate, use creative licensing" campaign.
  A modern answer to P2P: http://www.flora.ca/makelegal200403.shtml
  Canadian File-sharing Legal Information Network http://www.canfli.org/

--
For (un)subscription information, posting guidelines and
links to other related sites please see http://www.digital-copyright.ca