Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Canada The Courts News

CRIA Files Massive Canadian Suit Against IsoHunt 160

Posted by Soulskill
from the payable-in-hockey-pucks dept.
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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

CRIA Files Massive Canadian Suit Against IsoHunt

Comments Filter:
  • by unity100 (970058) on Tuesday February 15, 2011 @01:07AM (#35206678) Homepage Journal
    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.
    • by h00manist (800926)

      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.

      • by blahplusplus (757119) on Tuesday February 15, 2011 @09:37AM (#35208676)

        "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."

        Problem is too many people are ignorant / apathetic, I always see people defending corporations and corporations rights over peoples, it's pretty disturbing how easily brainwashed people are.

        • by h00manist (800926)

          Problem is too many people are ignorant / apathetic, I always see people defending corporations and corporations rights over peoples, it's pretty disturbing how easily brainwashed people are.

          It is hard but possible to find people who are honest, kind, bright, and strong. But you have to look hard for them. Propose a concrete activity, any one, and invite people to participate. I propose we setup another wikileaks mirror.

    • by c6gunner (950153) on Tuesday February 15, 2011 @09:20AM (#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... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by andreyvul (1176115) <andrey.vul@NoSpaM.gmail.com> on Tuesday February 15, 2011 @01:11AM (#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.

    • by h00manist (800926)

      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... (Score:4, Insightful)

      by erroneus (253617) on Tuesday February 15, 2011 @04:52AM (#35207532) Homepage

      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.

      • by peragrin (659227)

        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.

        • by tbannist (230135)

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

          • by Anrego (830717) *

            Kinda thought they've been doing that for a while .. seriously.. that's actually the image I get.. and I suspect it's not too far from the truth in a lot of cases.

      • by Anrego (830717) *

        It really doesn't seem like they have future plans at all.

        What they want is to keep people on physical media. Rather than innovate and give the people what they want... they call out the lawyers and lobbyists and try to sue people into submission.

        Here in Canada, there really is no sane way to legally download. This is mostly the fault of the CRTC/CBC, but essentially if it's a show you've heard of, you probably won't find it available in Canada for legal download. You have people like me, who WANT TO BUY ST

        • Care to elaborate? There is iTunes for example and Net-Flix.

          Where I would agree with you is that it is increasingly difficult to buy CDs retail. The large chains - HMV, FutureShop, Best Buy have dramatically cut back on their existing stock. Sam the Record Man which arguably had the best selection is out of business. There's a few Indie stores but they sell music that *I* do not like.

          • by Anrego (830717) *

            Have you actually looked at their library?

            Seriously.. think of something you want to watch.. plug it in to netflix canada search..

            You might get lucky... but so far at _least_ 90% of the time I get "this title is not available, but here are 3 suggestions you've never heard of that we can provide you".

            It even extends fo documentaries. Discovery had a nice series called "breaking vegas" (not the documentary on the MIT blackjack team.. but a series that kind of followed in the same light). It's there... but not

            • Ok that's what you mean. That's cool. I don't use NetFlix (I would but I'm on a really low cap connection right now, renting a place). I know what you mean now and share the same sentiment.

              Though I can't relate with Netflix, this is a common problem with Cable/Satellite TV options, because there is one channel I really, really, want to get but CRTC regs are blocking the channel. So there's a channel in Canada that offers it but they are like 4 seasons behind. If you want to legally get it asap, you can alwa

        • by CoderJoe (97563) *

          I want the content to be released on physical media. Sure, I may then transfer the content to a more convenient form for my consumption, but I still want the original physical, (preferably) lossless copy. That way I can buy it and not be left at the mercy of a company that may not be around in 10, 20, 30, 50 years when I want to watch, listen to, or share some old piece of culture. If it is kept "in the cloud" on their servers, I can't be sure I can get to it then. The company may no longer be around in o

          • by Anrego (830717) *

            I agree with the sentiment regarding not having the stuff you bought "in the cloud". I wouldn't go as far as saying I want to buy physical media.. but I want an actual (DRM free) file. The netflix concept I don't mind.. because you pay a pretty reasonable monthly fee for access to their entire catalog.. rather than specifically buying movies. If I specifically pay for something though.. I want it in my control forever.

            The problem with physical media is the speed at which you go from "hey, I'd like to see th

      • by kent_eh (543303)

        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."

        Not quite.
        What they saw was themselves not profiting from every single transaction and they started to panic.

    • I know, because these same companies that say are hurting, are declaring that harry potter 6 had to go bankrupt....600 million dollars they owed and now do not, creative accounting, they use a dummy company hp6 to get all the expenses, then declare loses on the movie, which we all know made 700 million, so how does this work? paramount charges the hp6 company for everything from toilet paper to renting sets to renting movie cameras etc...and drive the prices sky high so that the company is hopelessly broke,

      • I've said this before and I will say it again, I never understand why the taxman won't step in and fix this. Seems like the feds should be able to take in a considerable amount of money.

        • I am sure they are being paid off somehow, whether it is with orgy nights with some celebs, and supermodels from hollywood or what not, but in the end, I am sure the taxman is very aware of what it is losing, but maybe does not seem to care because of said exchange.

    • I often wonder if a) they actually believe their own FUD or, b) their real motivation (and most likely the motivation of the movie and publishing industries) is to eventually create a situation where nobody ever "owns" anything, but rather rents/buys it multiple times. Either way, it's amazing how many industries are climbing over each other to follow the record industry down the DRM toilet.
  • by SkepticalJ (1996446) <skeptical@NOSPaM.gmx.com> on Tuesday February 15, 2011 @01:11AM (#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 (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Mathinker (909784) on Tuesday February 15, 2011 @02:11AM (#35206958) Journal

      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 (Score:5, Informative)

        by dryeo (100693) on Tuesday February 15, 2011 @03:20AM (#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]

        • by rikkards (98006)

          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.

          • by dryeo (100693)

            It seems to me that the Canadian courts have ruled that making available is not distribution. Which is probably the worst that ISOHunt is doing.

      • Re:Cheapskates (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Spad (470073) <slashdot@NOSpam.spad.co.uk> on Tuesday February 15, 2011 @06:14AM (#35207742) Homepage

        ...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.

  • by Anonymous Coward

    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.

    • 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.

      • 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.

        • by dryeo (100693)

          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.

    • No longer mere earthbeings and planetbeings are we, but bright children of the stars! And together we shall dance in and out of ten billion years, celebrating the gift of consciousness until the stars themselves grow cold and weary, and our thoughts turn again to the beginning.

  • Let them win!!! (Score:4, Insightful)

    by future assassin (639396) on Tuesday February 15, 2011 @01:22AM (#35206752) Homepage

    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.

    • by gman003 (1693318)
      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 materi
      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward

        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 t

      • Re: (Score:2, Troll)

        by mini me (132455)

        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.

  • This... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Barrinmw (1791848) on Tuesday February 15, 2011 @01:28AM (#35206796)
    ...is why I don't buy music.
    • by dryeo (100693)

      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.

    • by Nerdfest (867930)
      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.
  • by mirix (1649853)

    ...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?

  • by Anonymous Coward

    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!

  • by QJimbo (779370) on Tuesday February 15, 2011 @02:38AM (#35207068)

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

    • 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.
    • by DarthVain (724186)

      Seriously the CRIA couldn't have timed this worse for themselves. Look at the outpouring of anger directed toward the internet ISP's being corporate jerks ripping off the people. Think of the results.

      So lets say that CRIA is successful. This is against search. So now you get another large corporate industry limiting what people can do online. How do you think people are going to react now? How do you think the government is likely to react to that, particularly with a possible election in the future?

      Now hav

  • by Anonymous Coward

    How do you file a massive lawsuit secretly?

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

  • Characterizations (Score:3, Informative)

    by dontmakemethink (1186169) on Tuesday February 15, 2011 @02:51AM (#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.

    • by whoever57 (658626) on Tuesday February 15, 2011 @03:11AM (#35207216) Journal

      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: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Scarletdown (886459)

      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.

      • 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.

    • by mini me (132455) on Tuesday February 15, 2011 @03:33AM (#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?

      • 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.
      • That's not what he said. He didn't say that she should be signed, nor that she was good, or talented, or merketable. Merely that if you exclude the tens of thousands of artists that are signed to (presumably) record label contracts, mong the cruft that's left, she it the best.

        If she's really good, and has really good songs, she hire a promoter and book venues, or find a studio gig for advertising. Just being talented - in the arts or anywhere else - doesn't mean shit if you're not willing to work your ass

    • Re:Characterizations (Score:5, Interesting)

      by dryeo (100693) on Tuesday February 15, 2011 @03:36AM (#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.
       

      • 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 (Score:5, Informative)

          by janek78 (861508) on Tuesday February 15, 2011 @04:55AM (#35207546) Homepage

          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".

          • 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
        • by dryeo (100693)

          Probably not many now. In the past quite a few and they keep trying to expand the levy to anything that might have copyrighted material on it.
          My wife mails DVD-rs back and forth with her family and I've known musicians who have to pay the levy to record their own music on CD-r.
          The point is that the industry wants everything, a cut of every blank media and the government enforcing their copyright.

      • 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
      • by DarthVain (724186)

        People still use CD's? How quaint.

    • 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

    • 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

    • 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

    • by Legion303 (97901)

      "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.

    • 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

    • > 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 enoug

    • 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.

      What poppy cock. There are hundreds of thousands of great singers in the world. I've seen local singers who come close to Laura Nyro (RIP). Same for musicians. There are hundreds of thousands of *great* musicians in the world. You fine 1 person who *you* think is a "hottie" and should be "signed". So what. Piracy isn't killing these people's living. Many don't even sing or play music for a living. I know a bass player who is unbelievable, but he's a bartender by trade because he wants to be. He loves to ja

    • by Bucc5062 (856482)

      I listened/watched the video (which I figure was part of why you posted a link, not just to complain about piracy), and found her to have a voice and sound I could listen too. So is the only path to stardom through a label? Does she tour, work at small gigs, or otherwise advertise her wares? Is there a (gasp) myspace site where more music is heard? Is there a fan web site to distribute concert info, merchandise, song samples?

      She may have gone unsigned for 10 years, because she did not use the "free" med

    • by Piata (927858)

      If she's so talented, why the hell does she need a music label? The internet provides anyone with natural talent and enough ambition to cut out the middleman entirely. If she's really dedicated to the art, she's going to work hard at it anyways so I don't see what she gains by having a couple of corporate overlords diluting her artistic creations to the point where it's ready for mass consumption on the radio.

      It's 2011. The world has changed. The music industry has changed. This is the twilight of the mega

    • You probably ought to at least post her name if you are promoting for her. Not everyone can access YouTube when they browse Slashdot, and having an artist name to write down would give them the opportunity to go look her up via their own means.
    • There are two worlds of music. The people that play local and the people that get signed. From what I have heard about the latter. Not getting signed is probably a good thing in the end. Record labels have become parasites in the end and once artists stop supporting them things will hopefully get better. Labels used to have a purpose and have now been for the most part replaced by cheaper technology. Eventually they will be gone. It is just that they have a lot of money behind them that will have some momen
  • by Fnord666 (889225) on Tuesday February 15, 2011 @08:36AM (#35208320) Journal

    "...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?

    • No, the onus is on the person accused to prove their innocence, as it is with all copyright laws.

      Also, the accused has the onus of trying not to go bankrupt due to legal fees, which is also kind of hard.

  • Before I get a down mod for being one of those terrible people who buy music let me make something clear; I do not think that downloading/recording music for free is unethical. Copyright started as an agreement for distribution channels and that is what it should remain. When someone downloads a song they are bypassing that distribution channel but are in no way harming or invalidating it. Re-distributing music however, is unethical and should be punished; artists agree to a distribution channel and by redi

    • do you really think that huge corporations deserve the right to cash in on the works of authors who have been dead for decades?

  • CRIA me a river!
  • http://leahy.senate.gov/contact/ [senate.gov]
    Here is my letter:

    Regarding your Speech at the Hearing On Costly Problem Of Online Infringement.
    You state that people who steal will always find a way. That statement clearly shows that your administration doesn't understand the issues at hand. For one thing, making a copy of a bike and taking the copy home to assemble a new bike from a copy at home doesn't mean its a its stealing. If someone found a way to scan a bike and make a copy of it, it would be new technology and it

"Don't worry about people stealing your ideas. If your ideas are any good, you'll have to ram them down people's throats." -- Howard Aiken

Working...