Wayne Borean
Published by Wayne Borean
Smashwords Edition
Copyright 2008-2011 by Wayne Borean
Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 Canada License
ISBN 978-0-9877226-2-1
Writer/Publisher
398 Alper Street
Richmond Hill, Ontario
Canada L4C 2Z4
Copyright Wars Volume 3
Copyright Wars is a collection of blog postings on Copyright from two of Wayne Borean’s blogs. The first series were from Cranky Old Nutcase, a blog on the free Blogspot platform that he originally started to practice writing skills. Later posts were on the Madhatter.ca website that he was given as a Christmas present.
They are being reprinted here partly for historical interest, and partly as a warning to artists. Politicians and industry are not working towards our best interests, and we must remain vigilant against them.
Index
The Real ‘Copyright Radical Extremist’ – Hello James Moore, This Is Your Life
MP James Moore Has Blocked Me From Following Him On Twitter – I Wonder Why?
Mom Is On CBC NewsNet Tonight From The Poet Laureate Conference In Halifax
Barry Sookman Works For The Canadian Recording Industry Association
Open Bytes article – ‘DCC, Bittorrent and Usenet – Is Bittorrent so great?’ – is Tim wrong?
Lies Of Omission – James Gannon Doesn’t Tell You All The Details
The Beautiful And Talented Janis Ian – The Internet Debacle:An Alternative View
The Beautiful And Talented Janis Ian – Fallout: A Follow Up To The Internet Debacle
Corporate Copyright Scofflaws 0006 – The RIAA Member Companies
Wild Panics In The ‘Balanced Copyright For Canada’ Facebook Group
Technical Protection Measures – When They Work And When They Are A Disaster
James Gannon Lies By Omission Yet Again – Star Article Doesn’t Disclose His CRIA Connections
Preface
I became involved in the Copyright discussion in Canada inadvertently. I’d made use of copyright as a software engineer, singer/songwriter, and writer, and also as one of the founding members of the FilKONtario music convention.
My wife is a singer/songwriter. My daughter is a professional photographer. One of my sons is a writer, who has written a series of television scripts. My mother-in-law is the Poet Laureate of the Temiskaming District. I know a lot of people who are either writers, poets, artists, photographers, singers, singer/songwriters, software engineers, videographers, and other creative types who rely heavily on copyright.
I have a strong reason to be interested in copyright. From this point on I’m going to use the term artist to cover everyone who produces works covered by copyright.
One problem is that none of the Federal parties, including the Conservatives, the New Democrats, the Liberals, the Bloc Quebecois, the Greens, or the Pirate Party, really has a damned clue about Copyright. Nor do they have a clue about what artists want. One of the best is the New Democrats. Charlie Angus, the NDP MP for Timmins, is a musician.
The Conservatives and Liberals suffer from a severe problem, none of the major players in either party is a professional artist. This is a problem that artists have contributed to, by not becoming politically involved.
Another problem is that we have a series of people who are lying by omission to the people of Canada. When a lawyer who is working for Music Canada has an opinion piece published in a major Canadian newspaper, and he doesn’t list his affiliation, he is lying to the public. I understand that his client might not want him to state the affiliation, and have no problem with that. However I think that if the client is unwilling to let the lawyer state the affiliation, than the lawyer should be required BY LAW TO REMAIN SILENT.
When I was able to discern a connection, and publish an article about it, this made me less than popular with Graham Henderson, the President of Music Canada, formerly known as the Canadian Recording Industry Association. Graham would rather that the connections of his pet lawyers back to Music Canada not be known.
Because the entire fuss about copyright law in Canada isn’t about benefitting the artists, and it never has been. It’s about benefiting a small number of off-shore corporations. These corporation do not have the best interests of Canada, Canadian artists, or Canadian culture in their aims. Instead they short term bottom-line considerations are their main consideration.
There’s nothing wrong with making money. Ask any artist. We love money. What’s wrong is lying to get it. That we don’t like.
When I published the first two books of this series saying that there would be copyright legislation introduced in Parliament soon after the next session opens, several people questioned me. Yesterday an announcement was made that Culture Minister James Moore has plans to introduce legislation. Curiously he hasn’t bothered to ask for input from the artists yet. I wonder why?
Wayne Borean
August 31, 2011
Bill C-32 – The New Canadian Copyright Act
Posted on June 2, 2010 by Wayne Borean
A copy of the act has been posted on Scribd and I’ve been attempting to read it, however the pain has been so bad tonight, that my concentration is totally shot, and I’ll admit that it’s not making a lot of sense. So instead of trying to write an article that will sound like I’m totally stoned (I am – the pain would be even worse otherwise) I’m going to point out some of the more important articles that I’ve seen, and leave the commentary until I can make some sense.
First we have Copyright Modernization Act – Backgrounder from the Government of Canada website.
Barry Sookman tweeted about this one – The Professor Has No Clothes – another attack piece by Chris Castle targeting Michael Geist. I left a comment here pointing out to Chris that he’s an idiot to attack Michael, that Michael is a moderate, and that I’m far more radical. I think that we shouldn’t ratify the WIPO Copyright Treaties, Michael thinks that we should. I believe that Digital Locks should be banned, Michael seems OK with them. So we’ll see if Chris approves my comment, I have a suspicion that he won’t.
Barry Sookman appears to be missing in action – only two tweets, and no posts since May 27, 2010.
Michael Geist has posted The Canadian Copyright Bill: Flawed But Fixable – since I haven’t read the entire bill yet I don’t know if I can agree, but I’ve disagreed with him a lot in the past. Quite frankly Michael’s too damned moderate for my tastes.
Ars Technica has an article – “Canadian DMCA” defends DRM, legalizes DVRs – which points out that Digital Locks over ride consumer rights. What they don’t consider is that Digital Locks also over ride artist rights.
Mike Masnick over at TechDirt is also covering this – Canadian DMCA Introduced; Digital Lock Provision Trumps Any And All User Rights – Mike’s a bit weird at time, but I think his title hits the mark.
As you may have gathered from my comments I’m a cynical old bastard, and don’t usually agree with anyone. But that’s me. As I said earlier, this isn’t a popularity contest (unlike politics).
Music on the other hand is a popularity contest – here’s a couple of out takes from an album that I’m engineering, they are under the same Creative Commons License that I use for my blog.
Regards
Wayne Borean
Wednesday June 2, 2010
PS: Here’s all of the tweets I saw on Bill C-32. The are in rough chronological order.
techdirt – Canadian DMCA Introduced; Digital Lock Provision Trumps Any And All User Rights http://dlvr.it/1P28h
mpjamesmoore – Canadian Film and Television Production Association: “We applaud the Government’s announcement today to bring about copyright reform.” 7 minutes ago via TweetDeck
mpjamesmoore – What he said RT @TonyClement MP If your phone contract expires & if it’s your phone, you CAN break the digital lock if you switch carriers 28 minutes ago via UberTwitter Retweeted by you
mpjamesmoore – Canadian Photographers Association: “We welcome the Government’s copyright reform.” 29 minutes ago via UberTwitter
TonyClement_MP – Okay tweeps. If your phone contract expires & if it’s your phone, you CAN break the digital lock if you switch carriers. #copyright 30 minutes ago via Twitterrific
TonyClement_MP – No bec damages would always be proportional RT @bettiol So technically if I burnt a CD of iTunes music for my car I could get a $5,000 fine. 32 minutes ago via Twitterrific
TonyClement_MP – Alas Ive no superpowers RT @scottfeschuk Important question: Will your new copyright legislation make the latest MGMT CD suck any less? 33 minutes ago via Twitterrific
TonyClement_MP – So long as no TPM RT @xentac @TonyClement_MP with BillC32 can I buy DVDs and rip them for my iTunes, so long as I don’t share? 44 minutes ago via Twitterrific
TonyClement_MP – Doin’ my best! RT @macdk3 Kudos to @TonyClement_MP for responding to questions from the twitterverse re: Bill C-32 #roft #cdnpoli about 1 hour ago via Twitterrific
TonyClement_MP – Correct. But that’s not ind practice RT @stewssr But not if they are digitally locked downRT @Sashgrrl can I still buy CD’s and rip them about 1 hour ago via Twitterrific
mpjamesmoore – (RT @ricktheis) Not sure ppl have got their heads around how huge & positive the proposed ‘education’ fair dealing exemption in Bill C32 is about 1 hour ago via web
mpjamesmoore – Canadian Chamber of Commerce: “The Copyright Modernization Act takes a balanced approach.” about 1 hour ago via TweetDeck
DanPagan – The full text of Bill #C32 is up online, thanks to @andrewmcintyre http://scr.bi/cdzVlb #copyright #cdnpoli #fixc32 about 4 hours ago via web Retweeted by piratepartyca and 10 others
JesseBrown – What a fantasyland, where digital locks are unhackable and somehow get artists paid, where industry never sues casual users…#copyright about 3 hours ago via web Retweeted by piratepartyca and 9 others
arstechnica – “Canadian DMCA” defends DRM, legalizes DVRs – http://arst.ch/kyx about 1 hour ago via Ping.fm Retweeted by you and 8 others
TonyClement_MP – Fairness in feedback: RT @dblohm7 Why can’t breaking a digital lock be legal if it is being broken for non-infringing purposes? about 2 hours ago via Twitterrific
TonyClement_MP – Bill C32 will allow this RT @dstamler @TonyClement_MP carriers should be required to unlock out-of-contract phones. about 2 hours ago via Twitterrific
TonyClement_MP – RT @JimiSuperstar Great interview. I am a Liberal but think you’re the best of the lot. Appreciated you honestly answering Evan’s questions. about 2 hours ago via Twitterrific
TonyClement_MP – Princess Di version #1 in 1997. Bazinga! RT @rjkuyvenhoven .@TonyClement_MP uh, “Candle In The Wind” is so-1973 about 2 hours ago via Twitterrific
mpjamesmoore – RT @MusicTechPolicy Canadian indies support new copyright legislation http://www.poten.com/NewsDetails.aspx?id=10422017 19 minutes ago about 2 hours ago via web
mpjamesmoore – Business Software Alliance: “We commend the government for modernizing Canada’s copyright laws for the digital age.” about 2 hours ago via UberTwitter
TonyClement_MP – About to go live on CBC Power and Politics. #copyright about 2 hours ago via Twitterrific
TonyClement_MP – Tweeps: thanks for all the initial feedback, both +ve & -ve, on Bill C-32. Looking fwd to getting the best Bill possible! #copyright about 2 hours ago via Twitterrific
mpjamesmoore – Canadian Independent Music Assn: “We are pleased that the govt not only has recognized the need for copyright reform, but is taking action.” about 2 hours ago via UberTwitter
mpjamesmoore – Canadian Recording Industry Assn: “Canada’s independent record labels & the artists they represent thank the govt for this legislation.” about 2 hours ago via UberTwitter
TonyClement_MP – Tweeps I cannot avoid this: “Don’t Go Breaking My Heart” was so-1976. Should’ve said “Candle In The Wind”. Sorry! #copyright about 2 hours ago via Twitterrific
DanPagan – Here we goes – Reading: Profs slam new copyright restrictions: http://www.caut.ca/pages.asp?page=894 #cdnpoli #cdnpse (via @dalegkirby)
mpjamesmoore – Je suis en ondes au 98,5FM a Montreal avec Mario Dumont en ce moment parlant de droit d’auteur about 2 hours ago via UberTwitter
mpjamesmoore – Canadian Federation of Students: 1st read looks good for students. New fair dealing exemption for ‘education’ (@RickTheis) about 2 hours ago via UberTwitter
mpjamesmoore – Oui, c’est vrai! La Presse Canadienne: Les Canadiens pourront continuer d’enregistrer leurs oeuvres preferees about 3 hours ago via UberTwitter
mpjamesmoore – Canadian Anti-Counterfeiting Network: “New copyright legislation is long overdue. We strongly urge MPs to pass this legislation.” about 3 hours ago via UberTwitter
mpjamesmoore – Very important RT @WGCtweet Getting the ‘not DMCA’ speech now from @mpjamesmoore – definitely important distinctions about 3 hours ago via UberTwitter
mpjamesmoore – Entertainment Software Association of Canada: “The Government’s copyright legislation is good public policy & is essential to our economy.” about 3 hours ago via UberTwitter
mpjamesmoore – Entertainment Software Association of Canada: “This bill is critical to the success of Canada’s digital economy.” about 3 hours ago via UberTwitter
USPirateParty – Just so that everyone’s apprised on intnat’l matters, Canada is overhauling their #copyright law, labeled as #DMCA 2.0 – follow #fixc32 ^GK about 3 hours ago via HootSuite
mpjamesmoore – Canadian Film and Television Production Association: “We applaud the Government’s copyright reform.” about 3 hours ago via UberTwitter
michaelgeist – Get active on copyright: join Fair Copyright for Canada FB Group http://bit.ly/8X8j3e & Page http://bit.ly/9Er2p0 #fixc32 about 3 hours ago via HootSuite
michaelgeist – Speak out on Copyright relaunched for new bill – info on bill & getting active http://SpeakOutOnCopyright.ca #fixc32 about 4 hours ago via HootSuite
michaelgeist – Distance learning, education & library exceptions return – with digital lock restrictions. #fixc32 http://bit.ly/aTYESy about 4 hours ago via HootSuite
michaelgeist – Statutory damages reform: lower liability range for non-commercial infringement ($100-5K). #fixc32 http://bit.ly/aTYESy about 4 hours ago via HootSuite
michaelgeist – New “YouTube” exception: no liability for non-commercial user-gen vids #fixc32 http://bit.ly/aTYESy about 4 hours ago via HootSuite
michaelgeist – New print disability exception to facilitate export of special format books. #fixc32 http://bit.ly/aTYESy about 4 hours ago via HootSuite
michaelgeist – New liability for Torrent sites that know site designed for infringement. #fixc32 http://bit.ly/aTYESy about 4 hours ago via HootSuite
michaelgeist – Mandatory review of the Copyright Act every five years. #fixc32 http://bit.ly/aTYESy about 4 hours ago via HootSuite
michaelgeist – ISP liability – Gov’t smartly sticks with notice-and-notice approach. #fixc32 http://bit.ly/aTYESy about 4 hours ago via HootSuite
ccercanada – Right on cue @mpjamesmoore has begun tweeting out quotes from lobby groups praising #copyright Bill C-32. http://bit.ly/bF7UiC #fixc32
bsookman – Backgrounder to the new copyright Bill at http://ow.ly/1TfQT about 4 hours ago via HootSuite
mpjamesmoore – Here we go about 4 hours ago via UberTwitter
bsookman – The Professor Has No Clothes http://ow.ly/1TeJQ about 5 hours ago via HootSuite
James Gannon – Is He Responding To His Master’s Voice?
Posted on June 15, 2010 by Wayne Borean
James Gannon of McCarthy Tétrault has written a blog post titled ‘Top 5 Myths About the New Copyright Bill and Digital Locks‘ in which he makes a variety of claims. His claims aren’t anything new, nor are they at all accurate, but I’m not going to dissect them right now. Instead let’s look at another issue.
His Master's Voice
Who exactly is James Gannon representing? He claims, as does Barry Sookman, that what he publishes in his blog is his own opinion. But is it really? Your life experiences, including work are part of what colors your opinions. We know that he’s a lawyer. We don’t know who his clients are – and those clients and their interests will have had an effect on his opinions. But he refuses to say who they are.
Word on the street is that his firm works for RIAA and MPAA member companies. This may or may not be true. I don’t know.
What I do know, and have documentation that proves it, is that his company has represented Rogers Communications in the past. They may still represent Rogers. If so, this could leave McCarthy Tétrault in conflict, as I’m certain that the interests of Rogers Communications would not be those of the entertainment industry distributors, but this may explain some of the more curious posts that both he and Sookman have made.
As I’ve covered in my article ‘ A Call For Disclosure – Who Do The Professionals Represent And Why Are They Hiding The Connection?‘ there is a need for legal professionals commenting on an issue to declare their alliances.
Regards
Wayne Borean
Tuesday June 15, 2010
The Real ‘Copyright Radical Extremist’ – Hello James Moore, This Is Your Life
Posted on July 12, 2010 by Wayne Borean
To quote Wikipedia, ‘Extremism is a term used to describe the actions or ideologies of individuals or groups outside the perceived political center of a society; or otherwise claimed to violate common moral standards.[citation needed] In democratic societies, individuals or groups that advocate the replacement of democracy with a authoritarian regime are usually branded extremists, in authoritarian societies the opposite applies.’
The perceived political center of Canadian Society, was determined during the Canadian Copyright Consultation. The consensus was that ‘Digital Locks’ weren’t wanted or needed. This consultation was considered one of the most successful of all time. Curiously certain people didn’t like the results. Barry Sookman, who Michael Geist claims is working for the CRIA (I have asked Barry several times to indicate his allegiance – he has so far refused to do so to me, so I don’t know if Michael is right or not) didn’t like the results. Nor did James Gannon, nor did Richard Owens. Lawyers, and members of the Recording Industry Association of America, members of the Motion Picture Association of America, and a couple of other American industries. Lawyers, and American companies.
So why did James Moore introduce Bill C-32? When I heard that Richard Fadden, the Canadian Security Intelligence Service had stated that certain Canadian politicians were under the control of foreign interests, I jumped to the conclusion that he was talking about James Moore… Which proves that my ability to jump to conclusions has reached Olympic levels! But who does benefit? Not the Canadian public. Not the Canadian ‘cultural’ industries.
For that matter the revised report (which replaced the report that had been cribbed from an RIAA document) issued by the Conference Board of Canada was against introducing American styled copyright laws. So what do we get? American styled copyright laws.
Extremists by definition are those who oppose the center of society. James Moore has called those who oppose Bill C-32 extremists. He’s lying.
James Moore is the copyright extremist.
Regards
Wayne Borean
Monday July 12, 2010
MP James Moore Has Blocked Me From Following Him On Twitter – I Wonder Why?
Posted on July 15, 2010 by Wayne Borean
You’ve got to love it when you find out you are making a difference. And you know you are making a difference when after you write an article critical of a politician, the politician in question blocks you from following them on Twitter. Seriously. I’m a Canadian citizen, interested in Canadian Heritage, who’s Mother-In-Law is Poet Laureate for her city, who’s wife is a Canadian singer-song writer, who’s daughter is a Canadian photographer, who’s son is a Canadian videographer, who’s brother-in-law is a graphics artist/novelist, who’s sister-in-law is a graphics artist, and who has a lot of friends who are artists.
Oh, and I used to be a paid up member of the Conservative Party.
James Moore has blocked me from following him in Twitter. I think that I hit a nerve, when I pointed out that he is the real copyright radical extremist. I noticed today that I didn’t get any tweets from him, and went to take a look at his Twitter page. When I got there, I noticed that the follow tag wasn’t checked, so I clicked on it, and this is what I got:
James Moore has blocked me from following him on Twitter. Wonder why?
This raises some interesting questions. Should a politician be able to block a constituent from following them on Twitter? Should a Minister (for my American friends a Minister is like a Secretary) be able to block anyone from following them on Twitter? How should this be handled in a democracy (obviously in a dictatorship things are different – but last time I checked Canada wasn’t a dictatorship).
There are certain situations where blocking is legitimate. For instance if I had physically threatened him, James would have a good argument for blocking me. But I didn’t threaten him. All I did was point out that his definition ‘Radical Extremist’ was incorrect. Our argument is political. That I feel that he made a fool of himself in public, and publicly said so, may have upset him. That a fair number of people picked up on my argument, and apparently agreed with it, and spread my comments over the net, probably upset him further.
His biggest problem is that shot himself in the foot with that statement. Over 3000 Canadians disagreed with his legislation in the Copyright Consultation (those in agreement were either lawyers, or large American industry organizations, and since American Industry Organizations can’t vote, their opinion is meaningless).
In my opinion his best option at this point is to issue an apology to everyone who doesn’t agree with Bill C-32, all of whom he insulted by calling them radical extremists. Of course because this is his best option, it doesn’t mean that he will do it. I suspect that he’s really annoyed with me at present, and that I made the suggestion will annoy him further.
James, this isn’t personal. It’s politics.
Regards
Wayne Borean
Thursday July 15, 2010
Mom Is On CBC NewsNet Tonight From The Poet Laureate Conference In Halifax
Posted on July 16, 2010 by Wayne Borean
Is there anyone who could record this for me? My VCR is broken, and even if it wasn’t I don’t know where I could find tapes!
Regards
Wayne Borean
Friday July 16, 2010
Barry Sookman Works For The Canadian Recording Industry Association
Posted on July 23, 2010 by Wayne Borean
For the last six months I’ve been calling on Barry Sookman to disclose who he was working for. Barry claims that his blog is his personal thoughts. I claim that everyone is affected by their friends and relatives, their work, and other contacts, and that therefore his employer has an affect on his blog, and must be disclosed.
Barry has avoided the issue. He knows that I know who he is working for. He knows that if I can get him to publicly state who he is working for, I can do damage to his cause, and therefore his best option was to say nothing (which is an oddity in it’s own right – Barry is ever more verbose than I am), while I continue to pretend that I don’t know who he’s working for, and that I can’t find out who he’s working for.
But the cat is now out of the bag. A comment was made on the blog, and I decided to let it stand. Barry Sookman works for the Canadian Recording Industry Association.
At this point you have to ask why Barry wouldn’t admit this? He knew that the information was available to anyone who checked the list of Canadian Lobbyists. But he wouldn’t make a public admission. This is delivers an interesting message. I believe that he thinks that the admission of who he works for will damage his reputation as a writer on copyright issues. And it will – he claims to be a Canadian writing on Canadian issues, but he is paid by foreign companies, specifically EMI, Sony BMG, Warner, and Universal.
When you compare the opinions stated in Barry’s blog, they match the opinions of the Canadian Recording Industry Association, in fact they are so close that I haven’t been able to find any difference. But Barry has been claiming that they are ‘his’ opinions, and avoiding telling anyone who he works for. Even when he is interviewed in the media he doesn’t admit that he is working for the CRIA.
I’ve been told many times that Barry is a nice guy. But really it doesn’t matter how nice he is. What matters is his actions, and his actionsare those of a man who knows he is morally in the wrong.
Regards
Wayne Borean
Friday July 23, 2010
*****
Note that The Canadian Recording Industry Association has changed it’s name it Music Canada, a misnomer if I’ve ever heard one. My attempt to get Barry to admit publicly his connection to the CRIA/Music Canada was of course a Chess move of course. WB.
Open Bytes article – ‘DCC, Bittorrent and Usenet – Is Bittorrent so great?’ – is Tim wrong?
Posted on August 27, 2010 by Wayne Borean
Tim over at Open Bytes has a new article, DCC, Bittorrent and Usenet – Is Bittorrent so great?, one part of which really caught my attention:
Since the vast magority(sic) of file-sharing on a p2p network is infringing copyright
Now, here’s the question. Can anyone prove this? Does anyone have a solid, peer reviewed study, that gives figures proving that the majority of file sharing is infringing copyright? To the best of my knowledge, no such study has yet been carried out. There have been studies carried out by the Business Software Alliance, and other industry bodies, but they have an axe to grind, and because of this their figures are not believable (for instance in one study, they assumed that every computer ever made had a copy of Microsoft Office, even those which were incapable of running it, and made no provisions for Free Software alternatives such as KOffice and Open Office).
Now I personally suspect that Tim is correct, and that over 50% of the sharing is copyright infringing. However the total lack of proof from an unbiased observer bothers me intensely. The usual reason that there isn’t any proof from an unbiased observer, is that the proof doesn’t exist, because the conclusion is incorrect.
That said, a quick perusal of the listings on ‘The Pirate Bay‘ would seem to offer proof that the statement is correct, however there are thousands of other torrent sites, and there are also the Peer to Peer networks such as Gnutella, never mind IRC, Usenet, Direct Download sites such as RapidShare, and all of the other possible ways to transfer files. No one has ever done a proper study taking into account all of the alternatives, so making a blanket statement that the majority of files are infringing is a dangerous thing to do. The majority of files may be infringing, however at present this has not been proven.
Also the Free Software, Open Source Software, and Creative Commons alternatives need to be considered. Ten years ago I knew a lot of people who ran illegal copies of Microsoft Office. Today I don’t know anyone who does, they are all running Open Office, KOffice, or Gnome Office. Why pirate Microsoft Office, when there are free alternatives, alternatives which offer superior performance? Ten years ago it was extremely difficult to produce and market your own videos, today it’s a lot easier, so people like the incomparable Taunya Gren (disclosure, she is a friend of the family) are able to produce things like the video series ‘Raising Kayn‘ on a small budget, and made it look great. Taunya lives in Utah, her sound track engineer lives in England, they collaborate over the net, something that would have been difficult even ten years ago, and impossible twenty years ago.
I think that it is probable that online copyright infringement is actually dropping. No, I can’t prove this, no more than anyone can prove that online copyright infringement is the majority of the the files transferred on Peer to Peer networks. But while I can’t prove it, I can point to things like YouTube, where you can find a huge amount of amateur video (I’m addicted to funny cat videos myself). And there’s people like Tom Smith, who are now able to make a living from music, using the internet to connect with fans (disclosure, I’ve known Tom for nearly twenty years). Other friends are posting their newest novels online, I suggest you check out Shirley Meier’s ‘Eclipse Court‘, and Karen Wehrstein’s ‘Chevenga Lives‘, both of which are well written (disclosure, I’ve known both Shirley and Karen for a long time – nearly twenty-five years now).
It is unlikely that online copyright infringement would ever stop, no matter what was done, however it’s like smoking cigarettes. Smoking cigarettes was once socially acceptable. It no longer is socially acceptable. Or drunk driving – at one time everyone did it, now it’s so socially unacceptable that very few do so anymore.
The curious thing is that all of the laws which have been enacted, appear to have had virtually no effect on online copyright infringement. What has had a huge effect was legal options. People love to show their appreciation for value, especially when they can show that appreciation directly to the artist, or software developer.
Regards
Wayne Borean
Friday August 27, 2010
Lies Of Omission – James Gannon Doesn’t Tell You All The Details
Posted on August 27, 2010 by Wayne Borean
Let’s take a hypothetical situation – what if I were to sit down and write a well researched article on why installing emission control devices on diesel powered non-road vehicles was a good idea? And I didn’t tell you that up until my body decided to revolt, I had spent ten years working in the industry, and was in effect being paid to write it? You wouldn’t be happy with me once you learned the background, would you?
So what about James Gannon? James recently posted an article on Facebook, in which he argues for stronger digital locks. James does not mention that he works at McCarthy Tétrault LLP, a law firm that does work for The Canadian Recording Industry Association, which has a vested interest in digital locks.
How do I know this? Easy. James Gannon works with Barry Sookman, who is a registered lobbyist for the CRIA (covered earlier in this article). In fact James is quoted as having assisted Barry in writing a submission to the Canadian Copyright Consultation, which Barry did while he was a paid lobbyist for the CRIA.
This is called a ‘Lie of Omission‘, to quote Wikipedia:
Lying by omission
One lies by omission by omitting an important fact, deliberately leaving another person with a misconception. Lying by omission includes failures to correct pre-existing misconceptions. An example is when the seller of a car declares it has been serviced regularly but does not tell that a fault was reported at the last service. Propaganda is an example of lying by omission.
The fact that James Gannon earns his living working for a law firm, which represents the CRIA is an important fact. one that could change the reader’s view of his argument.
As Marcellus says in Hamlet, Something is rotten in the State of Denmark. I think that Canada needs to adopt a similar regulation to the one that the American FTC adopted, requiring those who are being paid for their writing, to disclose the connection. Don’t you?
Regards
Wayne Borean
Friday August 27, 2010
The Beautiful And Talented Janis Ian – The Internet Debacle:An Alternative View
Posted on August 29, 2010 by Wayne Borean
I love Janis Ian. Her music is some of the most incredible stuff that I’ve ever heard. OK, so I was a typical, hormone overloaded teenage boy when I first heard her on the radio, and I though she had the sexiest voice in the world. Sue me. Seriously though, I’ve always loved to listen to her.
About six months ago my wife, Heather (a singer/songwriter) pointed me at Janis’s website. Heather had been using ‘Stumble Upon‘, a Firefox add-on that allows you to look for content that other people have recommended, and since she has friends who are also singer/songwriters, her Stumbles are often music related.
Janis had posted a long article on copyright titled ‘The Internet Debacle: An Alternative View‘. In this article, and it’s follow up, ‘Fallout: A Follow Up To The Internet Debacle‘, Janis covered many of the same arguments I and others had been making since the copyright debate in Canada started to heat up (note that I am not claiming to be the first to have made these arguments – in fact I came late to the game).
The fun thing is that Janis wrote these two articles for Performing Songwriter Magazine in 2002. Yes, eight years ago. And they’ve been on her website ever since.
So why doesn’t anyone seem to know about them? Partially I suspect it’s because most of us don’t read Performing Songwriter Magazine. Partially it’s because while I and a lot of others consider Janis a big name, she has no where near the fan following of the Rolling Stones. As she points out in her article, she hasn’t released a lot of albums recently, though she still gets a fair bit of airplay on Rock stations. But still – she’s a lot more famous than most of us. How come no one seems to know she wrote this?
So let’s take a look at what Janis wrote back in 2002. At the bottom of both articles she has written:
You are welcome to post this article on any cooperating website, or in any print magazine, although we request that you include a link directed to http://www.janisian.com and give Janis Ian writer’s credit!
Hey, I’m more than happy to give Janis writer’s credit! And my thanks for all of the hard work she did.
So from here on in, you are reading Janis Ian’s ‘The Internet Debacle: An Alternative View’
Regards
Wayne Borean
Sunday August 29, 2010
*****
The Internet Debacle:An Alternative View
Originally published in Performing Songwriter Magazine, May 2002
“The Internet, and downloading, are here to stay… Anyone who thinks otherwise should prepare themselves to end up on the slagheap of history.” (Janis Ian during a live European radio interview, September, 1998)
When I research an article, I normally send 30 or so emails to friends and acquaintances asking for opinions and anecdotes. I usually receive 10-20 in reply. But not so on this subject!
I sent 36 emails requesting opinions and facts on free music downloading from the Net. I stated that I planned to adopt the viewpoint of devil’s advocate: free Internet downloads are good for the music industry and its artists.
I’ve received, to date, over 300 replies, every single one from someone legitimately “in the music business.”
What’s more interesting than the emails are the phone calls. I don’t know anyone at NARAS (home of the Grammy Awards), and I know Hilary Rosen (head of rhe Recording Industry Association of America, or RIAA) only vaguely. Yet within 24 hours of sending my original email, I’d received two messages from Rosen and four from NARAS requesting that I call to “discuss the article.”
Huh. Didn’t know I was that widely read.
Ms. Rosen, to be fair, stressed that she was only interested in presenting RIAA’s side of the issue, and was kind enough to send me a fair amount of statistics and documentation, including a number of focus group studies RIAA had run on the matter.
However, the problem with focus groups is the same problem anthropologists have when studying peoples in the field – the moment the anthropologist’s presence is known, everything changes. Hundreds of scientific studies have shown that any experimental group wants to please the examiner. For focus groups, this is particularly true. Coffee and donuts are the least of the pay-offs.
The NARAS people were a bit more pushy. They told me downloads were “destroying sales”, “ruining the music industry”, and “costing you money”.
Costing me money? I don’t pretend to be an expert on intellectual property law, but I do know one thing. If a music industry executive claims I should agree with their agenda because it will make me more money, I put my hand on my wallet…and check it after they leave, just to make sure nothing’s missing.
Am I suspicious of all this hysteria? You bet. Do I think the issue has been badly handled? Absolutely. Am I concerned about losing friends, opportunities, the possibility of gaining my 10th Grammy nomination by publishing this article? Yeah. I am. But sometimes things are just wrong, and when they’re that wrong, they have to be addressed.
The premise of all this ballyhoo is that the industry (and its artists) are being harmed by free downloading.
Nonsense. Let’s take it from my personal experience. My site gets an average of 75,000 hits a year. Not bad for someone whose last hit record was in 1975. When the original Napster was running full-tilt, we received about 100 hits a month from people who’d downloaded “Society’s Child” or “At Seventeen” for free, then decided they wanted more information. Of those 100 people (and these are only the ones who let us know how they’d found the site), 15 bought CDs. Not huge sales, right? No record company is interested in 180 extra sales a year. But… that translates into $2,700, which is a lot of money in my book. And that doesn’t include the ones who bought the CDs in stores, or who came to my shows.
Or take author Mercedes Lackey, who occupies entire shelves in my local bookstore and library. As she says herself: “For the past ten years, my three ‘Arrows’ books, which were published by DAW about 15 years ago, have been generating a nice, steady royalty check per pay-period each. A reasonable amount, for fifteen-year-old books. However… I just got the first half of my DAW royalties… and suddenly, out of nowhere, each Arrows book has paid me three times the normal amount!…. And because those books have never been out of print, and have always been promoted along with the rest of the backlist, the only significant change during that pay-period was something that happened over at Baen, one of my other publishers. That was when I had my co-author Eric Flint put the first of my Baen books on the Baen Free Library site. Because I have significantly more books with DAW than with Baen, the increases showed up at DAW first. There’s an increase in all of the books on that statement, actually, and what it looks like is what I’d expect to happen if a steady line of people who’d never read my stuff encountered it on the Free Library – a certain percentage of them liked it, and started to work through my backlist, beginning with the earliest books published. The really interesting thing is, of course, that these aren’t Baen books, they’re DAW—another publisher—so it’s ‘name loyalty’ rather than ‘brand loyalty.’ I’ll tell you what, I’m sold. Free works.”
I’ve found that to be true myself; every time we make a few songs available for free download on my website, sales of all the CDs go up. A lot.
And I don’t know about you, but as an artist with an in-print record catalogue that dates back to 1965, I’d be thrilled to see sales on my old catalogue rise!
Now, RIAA and NARAS, as well as most of the entrenched music industry, are arguing that free downloads hurt sales. (More than hurt – they’re saying it’s destroying the industry.)
Alas, the music industry needs no outside help to destroy itself. We’re doing a very adequate job of that on our own, thank you.
Here are a few statements from the RIAA’s website:
“Analysts report that just one of the many peer-to-peer systems in operation is responsible for over 1.8 billion unauthorized downloads per month”. (Hilary B. Rosen letter to the Honorable Rick Boucher, Congressman, February 28, 2002)
“Sales of blank CD-R discs have…grown nearly 2 ½ times in the last two years…if just half the blank discs sold in 2001 were used to copy music, the number of burned CDs worldwide is about the same as the number of CDs sold at retail.” (Hilary B. Rosen letter to the Honorable Rick Boucher, Congressman, February 28, 2002)
“Music sales are already suffering from the impact…in the United States, sales decreased by more than 10% in 2001.” (Hilary B. Rosen letter to the Honorable Rick Boucher, Congressman, February 28, 2002)
“In a recent survey of music consumers, 23%…said they are not buying more music because they are downloading or copying their music for free.” (Hilary B. Rosen letter to the Honorable Rick Boucher, Congressman, February 28, 2002)
Let’s take these points one by one, but before that, let me remind you of something: the music industry had exactly the same response to the advent of reel-to-reel home tape recorders, cassettes, DATs, minidiscs, VHS, BETA, music videos (“Why buy the record when you can tape it?”), MTV, and a host of other technological advances designed to make the consumer’s life easier and better. I know, because I was there.
The only reason they didn’t react that way publicly to the advent of CDs was because they believed CD’s were uncopyable. I was told this personally by a former head of Sony marketing back around 1983, when they asked me to allow them to release my album Between the Lines in CD format, at three-quarters the royalty rate I was contractually entitled to earn. (And why should I earn 25% less? “Because it’s a brand new technology.” And now, twenty years later, do I still earn 25% less on that CD? Of course!)
Regarding Rosen’s comments, who’s to say that any of those people would have bought the CD’s if the songs weren’t available for free? I can’t find a single study on this, one where a reputable surveyor such as Gallup actually asks people that question. I think no one’s run one because everyone is afraid of the truth – most of the downloads are being done by people who want to try an artist out, or who can’t find the music in print.
And if a percentage of that 1.8 billion is because people are downloading a current hit by Britney or In Sync, who’s to say it really hurt their sales? Soft statistics are easily manipulated. How many of those people went out and bought an album that had been over-played at radio for months, just because they downloaded a portion of it?
Sales of blank CDs have grown? You bet. I bought a new Vaio last December (ironically enough, made by Sony), and now back up all my files onto CD. I go through 7-15 CD’s a week that way, or about 500 a year. Most new PC’s come with Windows XP, which makes backing up to CD painless; how many people are doing what I’m doing? Additionally, when I buy a new CD, I make a copy for my car, a copy for upstairs, and a copy for my partner. That’s three blank discs per CD. So I alone account for around 750 blank CDs yearly.
And I’m sure the sales decrease had nothing to do with the economy’s decrease, or a steady downward spiral in the music industry, or the garbage being pushed by record companies. Aren’t you? There were 32,000 new titles released in this country alone during 2001, and that’s not including re-issues, Do-It-Yourself projects , or smaller labels that don’t report to SoundScan. Our Unreleased series, which we haven’t bothered SoundScanning, sold 6,000+ copies last year.
A conservative estimate would place the number of “newly available” CD’s per year at 100,000. That’s an awful lot of releases for an industry that’s being destroyed.
To make matters worse, we hear music everywhere, whether we want to or not; stores, amusement parks, highway rest stops. The original concept of Muzak (to be played in elevators so quietly that its soothing effect would be subliminal) has run amok. Why buy records when you can learn the entire Top 40 just by going shopping for groceries?
Which music consumers is the RIAA talking about here? College kids who can’t afford to buy 10 new CDs a month, but want to hear their favorite groups? When I bought my nephews a new Backstreet Boys CD, I asked why they hadn’t downloaded it instead. They patiently explained to their senile aunt that the download wouldn’t give them the cool artwork, and more important, the video they could see only on the CD.
Realistically, why do most people download music?
To hear new music, or records that have been deleted and are no longer available for purchase. Not to avoid paying $5 at the local used CD store, or taping it off the radio, but to hear music they can’t find anywhere else. Face it – most people can’t afford to spend $15.99 to experiment. That’s why listening booths (which labels fought against, too) have been such a success.
You can’t hear new music on the radio these days. I live in Nashville, Tennessee – “Music City USA” – and we have exactly one station willing to play a non-top-40 format. On a clear day, I can even tune it in. The situation’s not much better in Los Angeles or New York. College stations are sometimes bolder, but their wattage is so low that most of us can’t get them.
One other major point: in the hysteria of the moment, everyone is forgetting the main way an artist becomes successful – exposure. Without exposure, no one comes to shows, no one buys CDs, no one enables you to earn a living doing what you love. Again, from my personal experience: in 37 years as a recording artist, I’ve created 20+ albums for major labels, and I’ve never once received a royalty check that didn’t show I owed them money. So I make the bulk of my living from live touring, playing for 80-1500 people a night, 200-300 nights a year, doing my own show. I spend hours each week doing press, writing articles, making sure my website tour information is up to date.
Why? Because all of that gives me exposure to an audience that might not come otherwise. So when someone writes and tells me they came to my show because they’d downloaded a song and gotten curious, I am thrilled!
Who gets hurt by free downloads? Save a handful of super-successes like Celine Dion, none of us. We only get helped.
But not to hear Congress tell it. Senator Fritz Hollings, chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee studying this, said “When Congress sits idly by in the face of these [file-sharing] activities, we essentially sanction the Internet as a haven for thievery”, then went on to charge “over 10 million people” with stealing. [Steven Levy, Newsweek 3/11/02]. That’s what we think of consumers – they’re thieves, out to get something for nothing.
Baloney. Most consumers have no problem paying for entertainment. One has only to look at the success of www.fictionwise.com and the few other websites offering downloadable books and music at reasonable prices to understand that. If the music industry had a shred of sense, they’d have addressed this problem seven years ago, when people like Michael Camp were trying to obtain legitimate licenses for music online. Instead, the industry-wide attitude was “It’ll go away”. That’s the same attitude CBS Records had about rock ‘n’ roll when Mitch Miller was head of A&R. (And you wondered why they passed on The Beatles and The Rolling Stones.)
I don’t blame the RIAA for Senator Holling’s attitude. They are, after all, the Recording Industry Association of America, formed so the labels would have a lobbying group in Washington. (In other words, they’re permitted to make contributions to politicians and their parties.) But given that our industry’s success is based on communication, the industry response to the Internet has been abysmal. Statements like the one above do nothing to help the cause.
Of course, communication has always been the artist’s job, not the executives’. That’s why it’s so scary when people like current NARAS president Michael Greene begin using shows like the Grammy Awards to drive their point home.
Grammy viewership hit a six-year low in 2002. Personally, I found the program so scintillating that it made me long for Rob Lowe dancing with Snow White, which at least was so bad that it was entertaining. Moves like the ridiculous Elton John-Eminem duet did little to make people want to watch again the next year. And we’re not going to go into the Los Angeles Times’ Pulitzer Prize-winning series on Greene and NARAS, where they pointed out that NARAS’ foundation, MusiCares, has spent less than 10% of its revenue on disbursing emergency funds for people in the music industry (its primary purpose), or that Greene recorded his own album, pitched it to record executives while discussing Grammy business, then negotiated a $250,000 contract with Mercury Records for it (later withdrawn after the public flap). Or that NARAS quietly paid out at least $650,000 to settle a sexual harassment suit against him, a portion of which the non-profit Academy paid. Or that he’s paid two million dollars a year, along with “perks” like his million-dollar country club membership and a Mercedes. (Though it does make one wonder when he last entered a record store and bought something with his own hard-earned money.)
Let’s just note that in his Grammy Awards speech, he told the viewing audience that NARAS and RIAA were, in large part, taking their stance to protect artists. Greene had hired three teenagers to spend a couple of days doing nothing but downloading, and they managed to download “6,000 songs”. Come on. For free “front-row seats” at the Grammys and an appearance on national television, I’d download twice that amount!
But…who’s got time to download that many songs? Does Greene really think people out there are spending twelve hours a day downloading our music? If they are, they must be starving to death, because they’re not making a living or going to school. And how many of us can afford a T-1 line, which is what Greene’s “consumer sample” were permitted to use?
This sort of thing is indicative of the way statistics and information are being tossed around. It’s dreadful to think that consumers are being asked to take responsibility for the industry’s problems, which have been around far longer than the Internet. It’s even worse to think that the consumer is being told they are charged with protecting us, the artists, when our own industry squanders the dollars we earn on waste and personal vendettas.
Greene went on to say that “Many of the nominees here tonight, especially the new, less-established artists, are in immediate danger of being marginalized out of our business.” Right. Any “new” artist who manages to make the Grammys has millions of dollars in record company money behind them, I can guarantee that. The “real” new artists aren’t people you’re going to see on national television, or hear on most radio. They’re people you’ll hear because someone gave you a disc, or they opened at a show you attended, or they were lucky enough to be featured on NPR or another program still open to playing records that aren’t already hits.
As to artists being “marginalized out of our business,” the only people being marginalized out are the employees of our Enron-minded record companies, who are being fired in droves because the higher-ups are incompetent.
And it’s difficult to convince an educated audience that artists and record labels are about to go down the drain because they, the consumer, are downloading music. Particularly when they’re paying $50-$125 apiece for concert tickets, and $15.99 for a new CD they know costs less than a couple of dollars to manufacture and distribute.
I suspect Greene thinks of downloaders as the equivalent of an old-style television drug dealer, lurking next to playgrounds, wearing big coats and whipping them open for wide-eyed children, who then purchase black market CD’s at generous prices.
What’s the new music industry byword? Encryption. Record companies like Sony and BMG are going to make sure no one can copy CDs, even for their own personal use, or download them for free. Brilliant, except that it flouts previous court decisions about blank cassettes, blank videotapes, etc. And it pisses people off.
How many of you know that many car makers are now manufacturing all their CD players to also play DVD’s? or that part of the encryption record companies are using doesn’t allow your store-bought CD to be played on a DVD player, because that’s the same technology as your computer? And if you’ve had trouble playing your own self-recorded copy of O Brother Where Art Thou in the car, it’s because of this lunacy.
The industry’s answer is to put on the label: “This audio CD is protected against unauthorized copying. It is designed to play in standard audio CD players and computers running Windows O/S; however, playback problems may be experienced. If you experience such problems, return this disc for a refund.”
Now I ask you. After three or four experiences like that, shlepping to the store to buy it, then shlepping back to return it (and you still don’t have your music), who’s going to bother buying CD’s?
The industry has been complaining for years about the stranglehold the middle-man has on their dollars, yet they wish to do nothing to offend those middle-men. BMG, for instance, has a strict policy for artists buying their own CDs to sell at concerts – they charge the artist $11 per CD. They know very well that most of us lose money if we have to pay that much; the point is to keep the big record stores happy by ensuring sales go to them. What actually happens is no sales to us or the stores.
NARAS and RIAA are moaning about the little mom & pop stores being shoved out of business; no one worked harder to shove them out than our own industry, which greeted every new Tower or mega-music store with glee, and offered steep discounts to Target and WalMart et al for stocking CDs. The Internet has zero to do with store closings and lowered sales.
And for those of us with major label contracts who want some of our music available for free downloading… well, the record companies own our masters, our outtakes, even our demos, and they won’t allow it. Furthermore, they own our voices for the duration of the contract, so we can’t even post a live track for downloading!
If you think about it, the music industry should be rejoicing at this new technological advance, not fighting it! Here’s a fool-proof way to deliver music to millions who might otherwise never purchase a CD in a store. The cross-marketing opportunities are unbelievable. Delivery is instantaneous, costs are minimal, shipping non-existant…a staggering vehicle for higher earnings and lower costs. Instead, they’re running around like chickens with their heads cut off, bleeding on everyone and making no sense.
As an alternative to encrypting everything, and tying up money for years (potentially decades) fighting consumer suits demanding their first amendment rights be protected (which suits have, in the end, always gone to the consumer, as witness the availability of blank and unencrypted VHS tapes and cassettes), why not take a tip from book publishers and writers?
The Baen Free Library, at www.baen.com , is one success story. The Science Fiction Writer’s Association, at www.sfwa.org, is another. The SFWA site is one of the best out there for hands-on advice to writers, featuring in depth articles about everything from agent and publisher scams, to a continuously updated series of reports on various intellectual property issues. More important, many of the science fiction writers it represents have been heavily involved in the Internet since its inception.
Each year, when the science fiction community votes for the Hugo Awards (voted on by readers) and the Nebula Awards (their equivalent of the Grammys, voted on by professionals), most of the works nominated are put on the site in their entirety, allowing voters and non-voters the opportunity to peruse them. Free. If you are a member or associate member of SFWA, you have access to even more works. The site is also full of links to members’ own web pages and on-line stories, even when they aren’t nominated for anything. Reading this material, again for free, allows browsers to figure out which writers they want to find more of – and buy their books.
Wouldn’t it be nice if all the records nominated for awards each year were available for free downloading, even if it were only the winners? People who hadn’t bought the albums might actually listen to the singles, then go out and purchase the records.
I have no objection to Greene et al trying to protect the record labels, who are the ones fomenting this hysteria. RIAA is funded by the labels. NARAS is supported by them. It stands to reason.
However, I object violently to the pretense that they are in any way doing this for our benefit – and you should be wary, too. If they really wanted to do something for the great majority of artists, who eke out a living against all odds, they could tackle some of the real issues facing us:
The normal industry contract is for seven albums, with no end date, which would be considered at best indentured servitude (and at worst slavery) in any other business. In fact, it would be illegal.
A label can shelve your project, then extend your contract by one more album because what you turned in was “commercially or artistically unacceptable”. They alone determine that criteria.
Download this book for your ebook reader.
(Pages 1-56 show above.)