Will New COICA Legislation Change The Internet?

They think they can control everything. There are more of us than there are of them. Furthermore, US laws can only extend so far before they are going into other countries' boundaries and personal responsibilities. It is just shit that they think they can do this sort of thing and no one is going to fight back against unjustified laws.

Unjustified? If your livelihood was based on sales of your music, you might be more concerned -shrug-

I agree with our guest here, there will always be those who exploit a new frontier - If I write an article or compose a song, if I market an idea I don't want some low-life to steal it from me. Granted, the large corporations are measuring piracy and calculating financial loss and perhaps their motives are less than pure, but the people who steal my work are downright thieves. They are the reason this legislation was even brought to a vote. Digital piracy is never an issue for those who benefit from the great price of taking instead of buying. And the justification that the act set to pass is an infringment of personal rights looks quite a bit different when you are the artist being shafted. What of their rights? What is the solution?

"Furthermore, US laws can only extend so far before they are going into other countries' boundaries and personal responsibilities." << Well technically the COICA was authored as part of the polylateral agreement known as the ACTA. The ACTA, or Anti Counterfeiting Trade Agreement, is an agreement proposed by Japan among a several members of the World Trade Organization. While the terms of the ACTA, which has too yet to be signed, are complicated it boils down to- Japan, The States and several European Countries agree to enforce each other's copyright and trademark laws. So- the COICA in context of the ACTA actually has international trade implications.

Wild, eh?

Sorry, but the musicians I listen to actually promote the downloading of their music. They ask that for any real supporters to come to their live shows and purchase merchandise from them. Why? Well, they don't see shit from their record sales. The sales from a concert go directly into their hands. A true music artist does not even care about how much dough is in their pockets. They want to please their fans and have them enjoy music that is personal. If this law is about money, which it is, then it is being created for those who are boo-hooing over losing money. You know who I am talking about, those pin-prick capitalists. They are bullies who force their ideas of what is correct (fattening their own wallets) onto others. They make dirty deals with other countries' political and corporate leaders to sign deals that hurt all of the general public.

If any of you can actually name an individual who is suffering because of pirated materials, then please let me know. But the last time that I checked, all industries that can have their materials distributed through internet pirating sites are still doing quite well. Movies are being put out at typical speed, albums are being regularly made, and video games and their consoles are breaking sale records every year. I think if people were really suffering because of the piracy, then these industries might show some slowing down.

In 1999 global music sales (including digital) topped off at about 32 Billion. In 2009 that number rounded out around 17 billion. IN the interim digital piracy increased exponentially.

Consequently record labels are less encouraged to take a chance on or develop new talent or sounds. The general decline of the music industry is not in any way beneficial to artists.

Further, subsequent to revenue withdraw the major record labels developed what is known as the "360 Deal" in which labels are entitled to ANY revenue generated from the artist's work. Including live shows, merchandise and public appearances. This, in my opinion, is detrimental to the artist.

More food for thought. This is one of my favorite subjects!

	felixthecat -  4794 pts -  (1 year ago)
	Cause and effect can be difficult to establish. Other reasons that sales might be down: music that sucks more than ever, the bad economy, disgust over the RIAA's tactics, higher prices at Itunes, albums with one good song, the realization that a CD costs less to produce than a cassette yet costs three times as much, other forms of entertainment, Sirius, and the list goes on.

Digital piracy extends far beyond music. I'm all for the musicians who have embraced the Internet as a place to connect with their audience. This is not just about DVDs, or music , this is about individuals taking other people' products and eroding the value of those products, whether it's software or something else by counterfeiting it. Let me know how you feel after something you have dumped years of hardwork into and loads of money has been pirated.

We may very well be seeing a natural paradigm shift as the Internet allows the consumer and the those selling products to meet without the big conglomerates that have grown so fat. That does not mean that digital piracy is a benign act - nor should the obvious over indulgence of large corporations justify theft.

You can't really speak against the wrong doings of the large corporations by justifying the wrong-doings of the individual. It's the old - two wrongs don't make a right scenario

The U.S. Commerce Department estimates suggest that U.S. companies lose over $1 billion per year of legitimate business due to piracy. From the counterfeiting that goes on in China alone. And this isn't just music, this is really dangerous conterfeit medications, bad components and unsafe devices.

The problem does exist - what we do about it is the issue -

This will result in greater copyright abuse claims, and more trademark blackmail than as is current, thereby diminishing our rights under fair use, and our natural creativity. It is actionable when someone makes a false copyright claim, though almost no one has ever been taken to court over this. The big companies making the false claims can outspend anyone, any time. This ill-advised law, a law that has been bought and paid for by corporations intent on stifling fair use and creativity, will allow them to use the government to an unprecedented extent to enforce their supposed "rights" of false copyright claims and trademark extortion.

mikep -  147 pts -  (1 year ago)

Felix- I was wondering if someone would bring this aspect into the discussion! There's a great book, Music 3.0 by Bob Owinski, that discusses why music has become more homogeneous and why its more difficult in 2010 for a new style or artist to emerge than it was in 1970. It also suggests how the industry should adapt. Like you he's cautious to say that Torrents have ruined the industry- See in the 80's the record industry saw a huge surge in profits due to the proliferation of Digital Media. Suddenly a label's catalog became a huge cash cow as everyone was switch to CD from Vinyl. Its then that large corporations like Warner, Sony etc, began to buy up the major labels. Quarterly sales figures and instant profits became the rule of the day and the old label system, in which A&R would find new talent, develop them over the years and finally break big ended (just go listen to Genesis or Journey's first albums and think about if BMI would have waited out for Invisible Touch or Don't Stop Believing!). This resulted in a less nurturing environment for new artists and a pressure to sell carbon copies of whatever was popular. Thus you get a lack of diversity and a lack of originality in the 'scene' as it were. When major losses occurred to labels due to pirating- which I firmly believe was the impetus, labels became even more restrictive. Pirating may not be the sole cause of the 50% drop in music sales (which is very real) but it was a major contributing factor in the decline of quality in music. As far as albums with "one good song" on it- because of downloading that "one good song" fans became much less likely to give an artist an honest listen. COnsiderint he following example involving two mediocre artists: Eminem and Spin Doctors. Spin Doctors SECOND album, which had no major singles, sold 2 million copies. Eminem's most recent album, which enjoyed two major singles, sold 700,000. This is not proof of anything but its really good context! Anyway- glad you brought this up and would love to hear more. Its very relevant and like I said- this issue is very complex.

name artists suffering from internet downloading? sure, just about every indie band. You used to be able to do just your music and make a living, albeit maybe a shitty one, but still. today in 2010? indie bands are not making money, period. Artists shouldnt care about money? just about art? really? obviously you are a child, because as any adult musician will tell you, it can be awful hard to put in any productive, artistic time into your art when you are working an estimated 10-14 hours a day. Most people commute, an hour each way, and you get a half hour to hour lunch, so take 3 hours onto your 8 hour day and you are at 11hours, not counting the overtime that seems mandatory with so many careers. I made most of my music in periods of being laid off. it was the only time i could put in some real effort into my music.

guest? it didnt give me a chance to put my name in, that blows. i dont have time to register, im tired from getting up at 6am and working `12.5 hours today, and then coming home to cook dinner for the family. so do i spend time registering here, or try to write a song without being interupted by work calling me with questions? lol. - eddie

And this just in- Popular Peer2Peer client LimeWire is now subject to injunction. Operators have complied with the injunction. Hmm!

Mikep wait - say more about this...

and guest - eddie - i get that - got a lot of people around me trying to make a living from music - gotta son thinking he's going to do nothing but music. Real musicians absolutely need to care about making money. I know my kid is not likely to make a living by playing in a band.

BTW, every 12.5 hour day you put in, and I put, and my kid puts in - we just need to make sure it amounts to something. Don't get pissed off cause you have a job that keeps you busy - make the time you need for your music.

Users heading to www.limewire.com, the domain which hosts a download client for peer to peer file sharing, found the following notice last night:
LEGAL NOTICE
THIS IS AN OFFICIAL NOTICE THAT LIMEWIRE IS UNDER A COURT-ORDERED INJUNCTION TO STOP DISTRIBUTING AND SUPPORTING ITS FILE-SHARING SOFTWARE. DOWNLOADING OR SHARING COPYRIGHTED CONTENT WITHOUT AUTHORIZATION IS ILLEGAL.

The notice linked directly to a PDF file of the injunction. The permanent injunction, filed October 26th in a New York District court on behalf of Artista, Atlantic Recordings, BMG, Capitol Records, Elektra Records, Interscope, Sony and Warner against Limewire LLC, relates directly to copyright infringement.

The inunction explains the history of action on behalf of the plaintiffs (Full text available here: http://download.limewire.com/injunction/Injunction.pdf).

This type of in rem action against a domain differs from the provisions of the COICA in that it is a permanent injunction issued by a District Judge whereas the COICA provides for temporary injunctions issued by the Attorney General.

Though LimeWire is widely known to facilitate peer to peer sharing of copyrighted materials the action still took two years to be issued.

However, LimeWire was a dated software- bulky, clunky and reminiscent of familiar clients such as Napster, Kazaa, Gnutella etc. Limewire's relevancy was fast fading with the advent of newer, sleaker, faster and easier forms of data transfer. In essence, the record labels listed in the injunction were hunting dinosaurs with spears (outmoded laws).

Taking out LimeWire in 2010 begs the question: Is the Government / RIAA even familiar enough with technology to wage a relevant campaign against digital piracy? This is the same industry which waited for the iPod until they got serious about digital downloads.

Oh Methuselah, man of the sphere, it is the year of the flood.

every artist i have spoken with on the road has been hit dramatically in the last few years from piracy. now the live market is falling hard as well. unless you're an established artist from the last decade, realistically the investment to release everything for free and make it back touring and on merch isn't happening anymore.
people are happy enough to watch youtube-quality video it seems.

There's also an unfortunate bias cropping up: If its not on torrent, its probably not even worth listening to, let alone buying, let alone pirating.

Fact is artists may have to seed torrents of their own work *just to get people to PIRATE* it.

interesting - so the artists seed torrents to promote their own work. i wonder what that business model would look like - kind of a can't beat em join em kind of thing

The basic premise is: Think of the actual content, the music, as part of your marketing strategy. Give away music but always remember to offer an "added value" pay item. If you give away a six track EP to your fans and you sell a 12 track album with tee shirt- you're more likely to move the shirts than you are the music. Merch is an artists best friend in the new web 2.0 world. Give away your album... if they buy a ticket to a live show. People expect free music these days for better or worse- so give it away. But always have the freebie track back to a paid item. Or- sell your music for the price of an e-mail. A well maintained newsletter is invaluable in today's music market. So they want your exclusive new track? Sure! Just fill out the form with your e-mail and get a free download.

Check out Bob Owinski's Music 3.0 book and blog for info on it. Its not only basic web 2.0 marketing, but an invaluable guidebook too the new music market. Its an easy read.

I'm all for the protection of copyrighted material, but coica does go too far. Instead of saying you downloaded 20 gb of copyrighted material, so now you are fined and imprisoned. but COICA goes too far by saying if your sites has copyrighted material it is the isp's responsibility to inform the justice department for permanent banning. Youtube, Wiki, or any site some government official decides they don't want you to see.

copyright infringement does effect more than the artist and the label, how about every one who works for the label, the production. I do agree that the portions of an album sale should be broke up differently but don't punish the people with jobs to attack the people at the top. They will take what they believe is theirs.

Well, if the douchebags hadn't consistently moved to extend copyright from 14 years to ad infinitum, I might have more sympathy for them.

How long should copyright holders own their copyright?

I may be a little late to add to this discussion. However, I would like to throw my two cents in. This law is unconstitutional and does not provide the checks to make it balanced as it were. Sensorship is never an appropriate alternative. Sensorship ALWAYS breads tryanny, it is the first sign of oppression, and this is the first major act of direct sensorship the US government has ever approved.

Our government is already hated by most of the worlds population, including most of its own citizens, for its hap-hazzard belief that it can control all aspects of every individual person's lives whether they live in the US or not. The government already has the common person, like myself, and the guest working 12 hour days, pressed so hard under their thumb that we cannot speak our mind. Now they are moving to phase 2, direct sensorship to what information we can access. I do not believe this is a coincidence.

The fact of the matter is that artists benefit from "piracy," and major corporation who exploit consumers and artists alike do not. An artists makes only a minute amount on each copy of the media sold. They benefit far more from the exposure and popularity gained through allowing this type of activity affords.

The hard truth is that the vast majority of people who pirate will never pay for a new cd or movie anyway. These are the people who will buy used or go to the video store and rent a movie, or just watch Stars or Netflicks. These are the people who will get their music from listening to the radio and the like. These sources allow only what the corporations want you to see and hear to reach the public.

These are the people who canot afford to go spend $50 at the movie theater or $30 for a new video to support the artist who gets $.50 or $1.00. You are mislead if you believe artist's receive their profits from the sale of their materials. Artists money comes from performances and merchandise. This act will likely destroy anyones hopes of ever becoming a performer when you take into account all factors involved.

I would also like to stress that I do not support piracy. However, I also do not see the benefit of sensorship or corporate profit gouging. There is no reason a new video should cost $30-$40, or a cd cost $20-$30, other than the mpaa and riaa companies gouging 500% profit on their expenditure. As a result of this, people who see this as wrong will simply never see anything an artists creates. Also, the mpaa and riaa will control all media you are allowed access to. Any artists who do not do what they want will simply be denied publicity. The artists work will never be appreciated and his popularity will diminish. Without exposure his live performances will generate less of an audience and less merch sales.

We have evolved into a digital society. A new way to police this digital society is needed. New penalties are required. Piracy is wrong, copyright infringement is wrong, and general theft is also wrong. People who pirate have no right to do so, and should not be allowed to do so. However, the truth is that allowing sensorship is never a good thing. This WILL be abused and will create far more problems than it solves. Our tyranical aristocracy of a government is now surfacing.

In what way is COICA censorship? And in what way would it be abused? In what way does this "promotion" you speak of benefit the artist? Just because someone can't afford a CD, what gives them the right to own one that negates the moral implications of piracy?

And you're not too late for the conversation- the legislation has yet to be passed and this issue is one that will continue to affect us in the States and in the rest of the world. Its important we discuss matters like this- if not only to better understand our own rights and the machinations of law.

Points of view are *always* welcome.

I am not saying anyone has the right to download. I specifically said I was against piracy. However, I did say that I do not believe in censhorship. There must be better ways than giving the media company control over what information we can access. Censorship always leads to corruption among those in control and dissent among those who are denied their first amendment rights. This cannot be good.

Censorship is defined (by merriam-webster - http://www.meriam-webster.com) as the act of censoring. Censoring is defined as follows: "to examine in order to suppress or delete anything considered objectionable <censor the news>; also : to suppress or delete as objectionable <censor out indecent passages>"

Please tell me in what ways this legislation is not censoring? I may not have heard the entire story, but from what I can find, information-wise, about this seems to lead me to believe it is a very vague piece of legislation that will allow the media companies broad control to remove sites at their discretion.

I have noticed this alarming trend lately among our polititians. They constantly push through vague laws that do not work. This is part of the reason that the US imprisons more of its own people than any other country in the world. Most of whom do not belong there.

My argument above, was simply I believe they could stem piracy far more by limiting corporate profit gouging. How many more copies would a movie sell if it only cost $15-$20 instead of $35-$50? Or a cd cost $10-$12 instead of $20-$30?

These enormous price hikes are what started the piracy explosion in the first place. This was not a pressing issue 5+ years ago when people were making more money AND the prices were considerably lower. I find that to be more than a coincidence. This is a simply supply and demand equation that has tipped the scales too far.

I realize there are plenty of people who make $100,000 + a year and can afford those prices, but there are for more of us working 50+ hours a week making $20,000 - a year who cannot. Our budgets do not allow for that kind of spending. Most of us were content to use Ebay, but that avenue has nearly dissapeared due to the companies campaign against their sellers and the recent income tax amendments that enforce online sales claims. I have no doubt this added fuel to the fire.

I personally have pretty much gotten to the point of working so much I dont have time to mess with media. I listen to the radio on rare occasions or buy movies from blockbuster or craigslist as they seem to be the only somewhat reasonable prices left. I am sure there are plenty like me content to do this, that do not support big media companies. However, I do see all of these reasons that have contributed to the recent explosion of piracy. Many people are not content to do so. These people are leading to this vague and ridiculous censorship law that we will all end up paying for in the end.

"Please tell me in what ways this legislation is not censoring?" Content is not being suppressed- you can still get it by paying for it. Nothing says that just because its not free its not available.

"This was not a pressing issue 5+ years ago when people were making more money AND the prices were considerably lower." First: Prices were lower because the record industry was caught in a price fixing scam for which they settled out of court (I got my check!) in the late 90's. It was in fact an issue. Also 5-10 years ago file sharing had yet to reach the proportions it has now- further just because something is expensive doesn't mean much. We honestly have no "right" to movies or music- if bread was 20 dollars a loaf I might take to the streets French Revolution style tho! Yeah!

Also I don't think sales tax enforcement has "killed" online retailers as an outlet. The draw of Amazon / Ebay etc wasn't saving 45 cents per purchase, but getting a used or new item, generally at a good price and more often something I can't find in record stores (Which don't exist anymore! Blame Best Buy and Target for this one folks!).

I am not convinced that a 10-15 (what I consider fair) dollar price range would solve the problem- but I'm willing to admit it would make a dent!

However its more than just "GREEDY CORPORATE GUISE" and such that are affected by digital piracy.

Take the indie web-comic artist. The second a new comic is posted the content is re-broadcast over the internet- meaning the artist gets less hits on their site, meaning their advertisers get less clicks, meaning her t-shirts can't be sold or bought, meaning she gets a lower site ranking, meaning she gets less advertisers... People like to pretend "sharing" the content is promotion- but if you look at the facts content sharing does *not* correlate into unique hits for digital artists, or more purchases at best buy (music sales are unequivocally DOWN since file sharing). This isn't some corporate, money grubbing exploiter of art we're talking. We're talking an artist who provides a (Free) comic and hopes to sell some merch on the side.

Should this type of scenario be taken as a "Casualty" of the "Fight" against .... having to pay for something we want?

I understand your point- you're angry at the industry for mishandling the digital age. You don't believe in piracy but believe its a tool to "send a message" and hope for the entertainment industry to right itself once it realizes that its contributing to the problem.

However there are casualties in this "war" that the iGeneration is waging.

As MC Lars said:
"You know, we just wanted a level playing field.
You’ve overcharged us for music for years, and now we’re
Just trying to find a fair balance. I hate to say it, but…
Welcome to the future. "

The problem is the tactics are failing and in the end we're not helping the situation. But, welcome to the future- none of this is going away any time soon!