MUSIC AND THE FIGHT FOR A NEW INDUSTRY

Resigning from Fair Copyright for Canada York Region

noreply@blogger.com (Jason K) — Mon, 05 Jul 2010 05:31:00 +0000

I have left FCFC-YR on my own accord. The below is an explanation as to why:

My personal views on copyright are those expressed by the independent economists in this debate, and not with Dr. Geist founder of FCFC and one of the main reasons I've chosen to leave. I uphold the principle of fair copyright for Canada, and that law must remain in balanced with interests. Where that balance lies I think has become somewhat distorted recently due to Minister Moore's comments, and creators on both sides of the spectrum risk a devastating blow if we do not get this right.

Mr. Degen champions artistic rights which will not, and have not provided an increase in pay for creators in other countries with these reforms in place, and Geists Notice to Notice approach has been proven not to work either, in fact he has mis-quoted the ESAC several times on that. People are switching over to darknet services now, when being presented with a notice to notice, or notice and take down where tracking is becoming nearly impossible.

Mr. Degen is about free speech, those championing stricter copyright reforms over the years have done their best at censoring the public’s voice with frivolous DMCA notices, sometimes on the basis of parody that companies like Universal Music found not to be “funny enough”. True censorship lies in stricter reforms, especially for those who wish to implement the 3 strikes rule which Mr. Degen supports, and will do nothing for the creative industries, in fact this type of approach puts our digital economy at risk by throwing the consumer out of the marketplace. Kicking people off of the internet is much more of a serious censorship issue than that of booting someone out of the group to protect the members from the onslaught John is well known in dishing out when people don’t agree with his views.

In order to foster in a profitable future, we need to legalize the use of P2P and monetize it (which is the opinion of most independent economists), which Geist does not support. Creators can now track the success of productions online, and they can be enumerated quite easily. The more creators push for user sanctions the more difficult it will be to track and enumerate based on monetization of these networks, and the worse it will get for creators. The sharing of media cannot be stopped and attempts for over the past 12 years have only done severe damage to the creative industry around the globe with innovation at a near standstill. There is no rational by Geist or Degen how this would be different here in Canada. These failures by industry are blamed on the users, and consumers by creators because they have been way too trusting on those in industry to look after them. As a creator myself, I have to look back at those 12 years and question whether that support for those in industry calling for stricter reforms was worth it. I haven’t seen a damn dime from these stricter reforms yet that have been in place around the globe. The past 2 years, I’ve explored this on a personal quest in this blog. I hope other creators have the chance to read through some of what’s posted on here, and responses to them which includes a UN rep.

That being said, this debate has effectively been turned away from copyright by Mr. Degen, and Mr. Geist and others. I found being thrust into something that has more to do with their bravado, ego’s, and reputations than it does with fair copyright which is something I will no longer take a part in. I’m interested in a pay cheque as a creator, and not protecting Geist’s reputation.

In the part of the music industry I’m a part of there is a saying. P.L.U.R. = Peace Love Unity and Respect. This saying has brought hundreds of thousands of music fans together, even Jews and Arabs under one roof, for nights of fun, laughter, creativity, and friendship. This part of the industry has been doing extremely well independently for the past 10 years. When I look outside of my window towards other creators in different genres, all I see is anger, and resentment which in my opinion, has been directed towards the wrong people. That saddens me, especially when comments about Geist are turned into something so deep and personal in nature.

Public opinion on this issue was formed well before Fair Copyright for Canada, and was actively represented in the consultations in my opinion. Fair Copyright for Canada to my knowledge is not an organization or entity Geist hasn't been elected to represent the public views on this nor has he been elected by the public to speak on their behalf. Dr. Geist represents himself in this debate.

Maybe we can start talking about how to increase our paychecks as creators, rather than marching off demanding rights that have done nothing for creators over the past 12 years. Maybe we all need to focus on how our right to get paid will work when "artistic rights" do not.

I am leaving my admin job with FCFC-YR, on my own because I’m disappointed with both sides, and I represent a consumer, and a creator not Mr. Geist!

All the best!

Facts, Not Fails!

noreply@blogger.com (Jason K) — Sat, 08 May 2010 04:56:00 +0000

As the copyfight heats up, it’s actually pretty funny to see the puns, and punches by both sides of this debate appear, when the debate really has nothing to do with character of the individuals at all, or law for that matter. It has to do with the understanding economic data in order to move the creative community into a different realm and getting them into viable market.

Some in the creative community believe that copyright law reform will force consumers back into the market place. Industry has always stated that in order to “invest” in new business models we need copyright reform that basically punishes the consumer for not using legal alternatives. Enough time has passed now, nearly 10 years, the artistic community should undoubtedly be seeing results of copyright reform in other countries, and they are not! Piracy rates have largely remain unchanged, the RIAA and CRIA have publicly admitted that suing consumers doesn’t work and does nothing for the artists, and in countries who have had reform for a long period of time, are now faced with the possibility of cutting their people off the internet because the reforms that have been put into place are largely NOT working. Even the only country in the world to implement the 3 strikes rule is seeing an increase in digital piracy. If the economics of any reform isn’t fully understood, than any law we put into place with respect to reform will be irrelevant and creators will not benefit from them in the market as a whole.

We’ll start with my pet peeve is with DRM, and fair use in the Information Technology world. Applying law here to protect DRM will have a significant negative impact on Canadian Small to Medium Sized Enterprises. It will be largely unenforceable within the consumer market, but in the professional realm could significantly increase the cost of maintaining and adapting computer systems and technology around businesses. Businesses could find themselves and their day to day practices being held hostage by increased license fees for software, adaptability and interoperability issues with existing systems (having to pay massive amounts of money to seek permission to adapt new software with existing systems), and giving DRM protection under law can also allow the software developer and rights holder to annul features of software at a whim, which could devastate business operations. This could have a profound effect on our economy in Canada, since most of our economy is built around SME’s, especially at a time economically when many are just getting by. Not a smart move at all, and the reason why the entertainment industries should not be dictating or influencing law like this.

The old style model of compensation based on per copy is largely obsolete and doesn’t work that well anymore. If creators want increase in pay than the copyright needs to be built into the networks. We need to re-think the copyright scheme in a matter that’s appropriate and based on scientific economic data, not based on ideology or morality. If we follow through with reform based on emotions of ideology and morality, than we steer this debate into a direction in which the economic issues will not be resolved, our creative community will suffer even more as a result, and could have negative effects in all industries. Law is not the answer, it’s part of it. But the law must hold relevant to the economics in order to see any return, and there is currently no understanding by those who base their positions on ideology or morality on exactly what the economic problems are, and how to build sustainable business models even in countries where reform has taken place.

The risk is not to the creative communities but the overall economic stability of our country if we don’t fully understand what has occurred economically in this digital revolution. In Sweden, the government bowed down to entertainment lobby requests. In the 8 months that followed a significant 30 – 40% drop occurred with respect to network traffic. No data has been released on the overall effects this had on the digital economy as a whole, and P2P use along with network traffic were at normal levels following this 8 month drop. How much money was lost due to this network traffic drop and where? If anyone has this information I would really like to see it, if it’s not available we need to study this further.

There is a real risk in my view that moving too far forward towards stricter reforms (that in large part have been proven not to work) could have a profound negative impact across the board in all industries, which in turn will affect our economy as a whole. For what exactly? Reforms haven’t worked because in large part those reforms are put together due to influences that base their position on emotion, ideology and morality, not fact. The real economic issues are still not being resolved by these reforms and until they are, than we will not see the desired result of stability in the digital marketplace.

At the end of the day, professionals in industry who are acting like my 5 year old son with the name calling, may in fact be ignorant of the fact that the real economic issues have not been solved by industry, you will not see any return regardless of copyright policy until we have a different more viable and appropriate way of extracting the value of IP from the digital marketplace, than law suits, and deterrence’s to try and push the market in a direction that is not only obsolete, but now irrelevant.

At greater risk for Government is drawing up social law that is basically irrelevant and unenforceable to society as a whole, which in turn doesn’t promote respect for the law of the land in the eye’s of its people (something that Prof Geist doesn’t fully understand either and should above all people).

US Gov Accountability Office Questions Piracy Claims

noreply@blogger.com (Jason K) — Sun, 25 Apr 2010 19:34:00 +0000

Some very interesting findings with respect the economic effects of counterfeiting and piracy in the US.

"According to experts we spoke with and literature we reviewed, estimating the economic impact of IP infringements is extremely difficult, and assumptions must be used due to the absence of data. Assumptions, such as the rate at which consumers would substitute counterfeit goods for legitimate products, can have enormous impacts on the resulting estimates and heighten the importance of transparency. Because of the significant differences in types of counterfeit and pirated goods and industries involved, no single method can be used to develop estimates, and each method has limitations. Nonetheless, research in specific industries suggest that the problem is sizeable. Most experts we spoke with and the literature we reviewed observed that despite significant efforts, it is difficult, if not impossible, to quantify the net effect of counterfeiting and piracy on the economy as a whole."

The report goes on to say:

"Commerce and FBI officials told us they rely on industry statistics on counterfeit and pirated goods and do not conduct any original data gathering to assess the economic impact of counterfeit and pirated goods on the U.S. economy or domestic industries. However, according to experts and government officials, industry associations do not always disclose their proprietary data sources and methods, making it difficult to verify their estimates. Industries collect this information to address counterfeiting problems associated with their products and may be reluctant to discuss instances of counterfeiting because consumers might lose confidence. OECD officials, for example, told us that one reason some industry representatives were hesitant to participate in their study was that they did not want information to be widely released about the scale of the counterfeiting problem in their sectors."

Full report can be viewed here.

JK

Who Represents Who?

noreply@blogger.com (Jason K) — Wed, 21 Apr 2010 06:00:00 +0000

This is in response to John Degan’s recent post on the issue with Canadians using form letters to voice their concern in the copyright consultation.

There are some in the music industry I know who would love to voice their opinions with respect to how their respected labels are acting lately towards the public, but often times are shut out of this process due to contracts. Often times organizations who claim to represent talents voices, may not be doing so. For instance, the Nettwork Music Group is part of the CRIA here in Canada, however the CRIA says they are representing the collective voice on this matter. Many CRIA musicians are members of the Canadian Music Creator’s Coalition who represent vastly different views than the CRIA and its lawyers have put forth in the Canadian Copyright Consultation. How many of people at the Canadian Song Writers Association (who want to see file sharing legalized) belong to the CRIA?

The American Federation of Musician’s (AFM) during the consolation claimed that it represented 17,000 Canadian artists, yet the vast majority of their representation came from American Talent not Canadian, and that members were active in helping produce AFM policies around copyright, however this was be done on a majority basis in which Canadian talent represents roughly 30% of this company's overall business. Yet they were able to have a place in the consultation, representing American views!

It's possible that a single musician could have been represented numerous times, on both fair copyright views, and the CRIA’s views (which are completely different) simultaneously in the consultation.

That kind of nullifies the argument on both sides of the table with respect to a true industry representation at the consultation, nor what artists and talent really feel and think about their future, and how they see things, and does not give our Government officials a clear view of the needs and wants in industry right now with respect to creators who provide the rights holders with material.

Access Copyright released a form letter to its members during the consolation, and told their members that their livelihood was being put at risk by the public. The writers who responded in form fashion on the Consolations discussion forum, edited the form letters with almost one voice that writers want to get paid, but are not willing to sacrifice public rights in order to do that. I wonder if Mr. Degan who is a member of Fair Copyright For Canada, holds those principles?

The Toronto Town Hall meeting was hijacked by music industry personnel. During the consolation the CRIA and music industry was well represented in the round tables, and previous town hall meeting. In Toronto industry pulled a stunt virtually the same stunt ComCast in the US did with respects to net neutrality public hearings with the FCC, that was to fill up the available seats to keep the public out. After the town hall meeting industry then took to the digital streets pointing the finger at Geist because they felt they weren’t getting enough media attention on their side of the debate, and Geist pretty much owns all domains on that front, and public influence. How can you get any public influence when you go to war with the public at large who will ultimately decide the fate of this debate? It’s not logical, and as we are seeing currently in the UK, there looks to be a heavy political cost for Government acting against the public opinion on copyright matters, rather than paying attention to their people’s voices. Canadians are not Americans, we like to spank our politicians.

Barry Sookman, one of the CRIA’s lawyers is threatening legal action already on the public if his clients don’t get what they want. I seriously hope Sookman’s clients do get that opportunity. There’s enough independent research to basically prove to any court that the reason for the industries decline is not file sharing. Canadian Courts don’t give very much punitive damages like they do in the States, it will be more statutory awards, which a defendant could in theory walk out of court owing the digital price on the album they downloaded, close to $1 per song, and that’s if they can actually track anyone down at that point. Mass litigation would also bog down our court system, The judges will start to get pissed off at industry. We’re not the US here. We don’t sue everything that moves in Canada. Our court system won’t be able to handle it, nor would we be able to put public resources into something like this at a time when most provinces and our federal government are struggling with historic debt loads. Why would the public support public funds to expand our judicial system to handle this overflow in order to help industry sue the very people who are paying for the expansion of the system. It ain’t going to happen fella’s sorry.

It’s the inability and unwillingness of industry to adapt to the market place and the economics in play. That’s now quite clear even from reports in industry that are showing the shift in income to other areas which industry is refusing to represent talent in properly, and research is available through the United Nations that basically saw this shift 3 years ago.

As for form letters, well all anyone has to do is write their respected MP’s on the issue of copyright to get one back from them. It’s part of digital life now a days, and the cry from IP Lawyers stating that the consolation was somehow botched, is very representing of their understanding of the digital realm, their financial stake in mass litigation, and I’m pretty sure government who uses form letters for digital responses will see this. I guess our democracy and government is botched too. I guess that’s why we are dealing with ACTA. Anonymity in some of these form letters could be representing of talent that wanted to make their voice heard, but can’t due to industry contracts, and fear of litigation.

This is a war on facts, not school yard bullying and name calling. The only time industry does this, is when they are confronted with a factual argument, or their backs are up against a wall, which could mean the government is actually going to table legislation that is representing of Canadians views in the Consolation. They can’t debate on facts, so they debate on character and emotion, which is something that would be a case loser in a Canadian Court.

It would be a grave political mistake to buy into Mr. Owen’s nonsense on form letters, in industry and out. Geist is the least of industry’s worries. The public doesn’t care very much for the cry’s of industry anymore. The RIAA down south did a good job at destroying any public sympathy here in Canada for their positions. The CRIA and IP lawyers positions are full of smoke and mirrors. The problem with smoke and mirrors, is that you can never see where you are going, and often end up in a corner alone.

Digital copyright: Nation of Innovators

noreply@blogger.com (Jason K) — Mon, 19 Apr 2010 22:00:00 +0000

I'm re-activating this blog, since we are at a pivotal point in our digital history. With many main media networks now disabling comments on copyright stories, I feel the need to re-open this blog, and provide a few of my personal thoughts and inisights.

This post will remain as a response to Robert Thompson’s Digital copyright: Nation of pirates which was published today in Canadian Business Magazine

The creative and digital industries are going through a cycle of Creative Destruction. What this means is that traditional business models are under attack by technological innovation, but it doesn’t mean that the money isn’t still there. Jobs have been lost in several industries due to the fact that a lot of jobs have become obsolete. Many in industry believe that by in acting tougher copyright legislation that it will allow for more investment and higher paying jobs in industry, which is far from the truth. What’s needed are businesses, that follow and innovate around the marketplace. It’s now a consumer driven marketplace not one based on monopolizing and irreliveant rules. It is based on promotions (always has been) and the ability for the artist to develop relationships through social networks that’s the key to success.

Mr. Thompson quoted a small business owner Loreena McKennitt in his article and Ms. McKennitt who is a very well respected Canadian Musician who performed in the Vancouver 2010 games, is also the owner operator of a small label called: Quinlan Road. The website for Quinlan Road is probably one of the most horrid looking I’ve seen thus far in an industry that prides itself on promotions. The first thing anyone in the e-business community understands is that if you are going to sell any product or service online, your website must attract business, and I very much fail to see or understand how Ms. McKennitt’s site does this in any shape or form. I think a lot of the problem with Ms. McKennitt’s label is the presentation it puts forth to potential investors, innovators, and businesses. It sucks. I wouldn’t have anything to do with this label at all. It looks like a grade 4 student did this up complete with coding errors. As talent, why would I want a company like this representing me?

The role of the label has changed. The demand in industry is for representation that is basically a one stop shop for everything from web design, to profile management, to distribution, to digital imaging, to concert and artist promotions within the multimedia sector. Quinlan Road does not represent this change, rather an older business model that is obsolete, and I can understand why her business is struggling. Free downloads are probably one of the smaller reasons why it is. I strongly suggest Ms. McKennitt take a few courses to upgrade on multi-media design and presentation if she wants to continue her small business venture. Those are the skills in which talent is looking for with respect to representation, and I can tell you it will not be file sharing or change in law that will determine the success of Quinlan Road, it will be the ability of Ms. Mckennitt to understand the marketplace she is now faced with, and adapt to the demands of industry as it is with all that are in business no matter what industry you represent.

The independent label sector is starting to get stronger with a more emphasis on promoting talent through multi-media which can be shared and advertised through social networks. This is how Obama got elected and raised his funds. There is a greater understanding now of an emerging business within media, on top of that the online ad market is starting to mature, and providing more business opportunity and jobs within the digital ad and distribution markets. In 2009, the UK rights management group PRS for Music released its annual report, quite clearly showing the shift in income in different sectors of the industry. While recorded sales were down, the industry as a whole was up close to 13% in the UK which includes area’s in concert promotions, concert tickets, etc at a time of grave economic uncertainty. Overall the money lost in sales can be made up in other areas of the industry, if business models were to change, and then maybe Ms. Mckennitt would actually be able to afford a better looking website.

As for the Special 301 report that Mr. Thompson quoted, our Government has been quick to not recognize this report since it’s mainly drawn up by industry lobby groups, rather than independent and credible data. In fact in several independent studies that have been done, the US ranks far higher on the scale with respect to “internet” piracy. During the CRTC net neutrality hearings, Bittorrent chimed in stating that the percentage of Canadians connecting to the bittorrent networks are far lower than any other country. Our own government has released studies, which have been backed up personally by a member of UNCTAD which states that many that share media online do by quite a bit of media. Something that a large number of countries including the Dutch have studied independently and have come to similar conclusions.

I think everyone needs to take a deep breath, because changes in copyright law will affect all industries, and have the potential of throwing us into another economic down turn if they don’t recognize how potentially dangerous and devastating it would be if consumers start to log off the digital economy all together because they are fed up, and SME’s have a tremendous rise in running their businesses as rights holders hike the prices up on virtually everything to recoup lost costs. The UK just put forth their digital economy bill which included the 3 strikes rule, and sales of records dropped to lows not seen in years as a result, and politicians are hearing an earful from the voting public during an election.

The recording industry has a history of trying to destroy markets, rather than change their business models. The same debate we are having today, we had when Radio first came out, when tapes came out, and now with MP3s. Artists couldn’t survive now without radio, where would they be today without people engaging in the internet. Where would our economy be? Something to think about. The entertainment industries might want to be careful on what they ask for. They might actually get it.

UPDATE: The Quinlan Road website is actually loading up better now, but my impression of it nor opinion has changed. It remains the same.

Final Post - Copyright and Media in Canada

noreply@blogger.com (Jason K) — Tue, 15 Jul 2008 21:44:00 +0000

This will be my final post in this blog, but in the fall will be starting a new blog around the more positive changes we will see as a result of this debate, and who's decided to move forward, and who hasn't. But for the time being, this will be my sign off for "Music and the fight for a new industry". I will keep this blog up for future references by reseachers, and followers of this debate. For me personally it's been one of self exploration. But with all that's posted in this blog, the final result now rests with our legislators here in Canada. The media industry will be moving forward with or without Canada or Canadian content. It's important that we all see what lies ahead.

There are now only 2 choices in this debate, and it's up to the legislators to make the only profitable choice, or they will be responsible for a major downfall in Canadian Industry.

For most Canadians the debate revolves around a lot of high profile examples in the US with regards to the sharing of music, and lawsuits that followed. This debate centers on much, much more than just music. Media as a whole has become the new literature of the 21st century. The new generation is speaking in ways that combines use of traditional copy protected media, and media sites such as Youtube to create a message that is a lot more “powerful” to an audience then the use of the written word. It is our writing in the 21st century, it is our expression. The sharing of this expression is shaping our democracy. It is very important as a society we harness this expression and freedom of speech, and question the need to make criminals out of those that use this new form of writing. This is the single most important issue in this debate, and something that needs to really be taken to the front and center with our politicians.

The Conservative Government has effectively outlawed this new form of expression with Bill C-61. To express yourself through media, you now can face a $20,000 fine per copyright owner, even if it’s a video of your grandkids dancing to a song that just may be in the background and uploaded to Youtube or social networking sites. Generally songs have 3 copyrights. The performer, the label, the distributer. That’s $60,000 liable for a family video posted to Youtube with a background song without even touching the “illegal” peer to peer channels. Universal Music in the US has in the past took down an innocent family video from Youtube through the DMCA laws because the artist somehow got offended by a 1 ½ year old dancing to his tune (they can do that and sue you in Canada with Bill C-61). Google who now owns Youtube was recently ordered by a US Judge to provide records of every visitor to media giant Viacom including information on Canadian visitors, something that our own privacy commissioner warned about recently, and something Google is currently fighting. This has gone way to much over the edge, and far enough.

The conservative Government and my MP Peter Van Loan were presented with a proposal by the majority of our Canadian Musicians, and songwriters to which was utterly dismissed. Mr. Van Loan has yet to answer to his constituents on this matter instead forwarding off constituent complaints to the minister of Industry, who insist this approach to the copyright file the government has taken is fair, just and balanced. The majority of those it’s supposed to protect believe this not to be true.

The majority of our Canadian Creators and Songwriters want to legalize the use of file sharing, and the sharing of media for a number of reasons. The Number 1 reason, is that over the past decade we’ve learned you can’t stop file sharing. It’s an impossible task that will cost tax payers millions if not billions of dollars a year to try and combat it. It will not be successful. In order for something like this to be 100% fool proof you would need to live in a dictatorship, or police state. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. Nobody in the creative realm that I’ve spoken to wants this. The only ones that do are these corporations that used to have control over the media marketplace, and now have to compete with a guy sitting at an internet cafe in Zimbabwe.

The second reason, is that file sharing is helping Canadian Musicians and media. Avril Lavigne is one such artist. Ms. Lavigne was ranked at the top of the legal digital sales charts in 2007, and she is a member of the Canadian Music Creators Collation which features over 200 of Canada’s top acts that have split off from “traditional” music labels to voice their disgust over the way the major labels are handling things with fans abroad. Ms. Lavigne’s label, Nettwerk Music Group headed up by country singer Terry McBride, is advocating for the industry as a whole to stop suing fans for sharing music, and is strongly voicing opposition to the position the Canadian Recording Industry Association (CRIA) has taken on the issue of file sharing. Mr. McBride has repeatedly asked the CRIA to stop misleading the public in believing the CRIA represents the majority of Canadian interests in the music industry. The Songwriters Association of Canada (SAC) touched up on this in their initial reply to the introduction of bill C-61. Going against the CRIA’s stance in with regards to file sharing stating: “Don’t stop it, monetize it!’”

The proposal that was put forth to the government from SAC was that an extra $5 fee be attached to your month internet bill for music, and let Canadians get their music from whatever source they wanted to online. The CRIA said it “wouldn’t have any chance in hell” in succeeding, the Conservative Government ignored it. This type of proposal, while flawed in some aspects and only includes music, not software, tv, film, etc was to be the starting point in which everyone would be brought to the table to discuss a proactive response to this debate. I believe had this happened we would have been looking at something similar to the $5 fee in all media and industries effected.

I recently had a quick conversation with Gerd Leonhard in Sweden who is a very well known independent academic and researcher in the technology field and how it relates to media. He is dubbed as the “Media Futurist” since he’s quite good at looking at the data in the media industry and predicting where we are headed next. He has been very accurate in the past.

I’ve looked at the all the data coming from the media and technology industries myself, the some of the same data Mr. Leonhard has looked at as well, and the same data our Government and Mr. Van Loan was sent. Both Mr. Leonhard and my conclusions are vastly similar. The internet now needs to be treated as a medium! Just like radio and TV pay into a pool for copyright, ISP’s should be doing the same. So far in the first quarter of 2008, our major ISP’s have raked in a massive amounts of profits, and Canadians seem to be shelling out massive amounts of cash compared to other G8 countries for a broadband connection. The ISP’s should be required to pay into a pool as radio and TV do without raising broadband prices.

Television and Film are not even close to being in the red line. Data suggests that these industries are about to head into a very different advertising model. One that is currently in use right now, tested and proven effective in mainstream media but will be fine tuned for the internet in the very near future. Instead of seeing the CBC logo, for example, at the bottom right hand corner of your screen, that will be an ad bug for something like Nike or Coke. This along with a copyright pool ISP’s pay into will be more than enough to compensate for downloading off of peer to peer networks.

These idea’s have been around for many years. Why is this not being done full scale right now online? That’s due to the fight for who has control over the marketplace, and positioning within this marketplace. We are also seeing this with our major ISP’s who are slowing down peer to peer application and opening up preferred stores for media. Something the CRTC is currently looking into, and the FCC in the US has recently put a stop to this with American ISPs.

Very recently our Canadian ISP’s have formed an alliance urging the CRTC to not step in and regulate new media on the internet. Last year, the commission met in Jacksons Point, Ontario to “revisit” it’s 1999 decision not to regulate the carriers and Canadian Content on the internet, which is currently underway and being studied by the CRTC with the New Media Project Initiative. I have viewed submissions by Rogers Communications Inc to the Commission on the regulation of new media content on the internet. ISP’s are currently in a position to and want to develop targeted media to suit your needs. They do not want any regulation because this will impede their position in the market. They will be watching what you watch and do online, and come up with a “personalized” experience for the users. There’s obviously some privacy concerns to this especially without a regulatory body in place to monitor the use and collection of this information, but the main concern I have as a new media producer is that this would put the ISP’s at a competitive edge over everyone else in the new media industry. The CRTC must regulate new media carriers and providers to ensure a mutual competitive atmosphere in new media, and that consumers continue to have the choices they do today.

By throwing the above idea’s into the media industries will force a once closed market to open right up which is something those that currently have a monopoly and are using this copyright debate to position themselves in the media industries don’t want. If you open up the market, everyone gets a share and everyone is equal. By opening up an equal opportunity marketplace it will also increase the choices consumers will have with regards to media products, and quality of those products. It’s not the downloader that’s hurting these industries or artists, it’s the inability to move forward and the fight over positioning in this market by the media giants that’s caused a lot of the damage.

D-Day for all of this is quickly approaching. The tipping point will be next year. It’s either you adapt to the sharing of media on the internet, or you will no longer be competitive in your selected industry. New wireless broadband technologies will be implemented on a wider scale soon that will allow the internet user to share online like never before. 2009 is expected to be the boom year for wireless technology in Canada and around the world. Along with this boom, the data is suggesting a massive serge in the use of file sharing and media sites by 2010 globally. This is something that cannot be stopped or discouraged. If our elected officials were to actually look at the data presented to them, they would quite clearly see what lies ahead. If laws are not put into place fairly quickly to adapt to this change open up the market, all Canadian media will become uncompetitive in the global market, by 2010. If the market is opened, those in media will be entering into a new “golden” age for the media industries.

While I agree that laws and rules need to be set into place at this time, those rules and laws should accurately reflect the changes in the marketplace and society to ensure that our Canadian Industries are not left uncompetitive in the very near future. They should not be based on bias information coming from those that are positioning themselves and competing in this marketplace. The Conservative Government should have taken the copyright file a bit more seriously, and represent our Canadian Interests in this debate. Bill C-61 is not Canadian, nor was it made in Canada by Canadians. Canadians who see what lies ahead were bluntly ignored, nor consulted in the drafting of C-61. Many of them resorted to writing letters to the minister of Industry which were left unopened on the ministers desk. Let’s hope come the fall, our elected officials make the right choice for Canadians and put forth a true proposal that will reflect the inevitable change that’s ahead and put our Canadian Talent at the forefront of this new golden age.

If you would like to help learn more about the copyright debate that’s before public. Join Fair Copyright For Canada local chapters on facebook, and write to your respected MP’s.

Copyright Bill - My Thoughts

noreply@blogger.com (Jason K) — Thu, 12 Jun 2008 23:35:00 +0000

Today we have seen the release of the new copyright bill. As a new media producer, it's amazing the control these monopolies have, and how much this new bill will damage Canadian content on a world wide stage. Give the consumer the right to break digital locks, but ban the programs that will do this. Anyways here's so thoughts I've expressed locally.

http://www.facebook.com/topic.php?uid=8460346793&topic=3942

The CMCC have weighed in:

http://www.musiccreators.ca/wp/?p=264

"The Canadian Music Creators Coalition is not impressed with the copyright reform bill announced this morning. “As we feared, this bill represents an American-style approach to copyright. It’s all locks and lawsuits,” said Safwan Javed, CMCC member and drummer for Wide Mouth Mason."

Michael Geist:

http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/3025/125/

"The digital lock provisions are worse than the DMCA. Yes - worse. The law creates a blanket prohibition on circumvention with very limited exceptions and creates a ban against distributing the tools that can be used to circumvent. While Prentice could have adopted a more balanced approach (as New Zealand and Canada's Bill C-60 did), the effect of these provisions will be to make Canadians infringers for a host of activities that are common today including watching out-of-region-coded DVDs, copying and pasting materials from a DRM'd book, or even unlocking a cellphone."

The "other side" has been quick to praise the bill (all over the news as expected), however mass opposition is quitely brewing. As the CBC Newsworld said "It's confusing" (not unexpected) also. Looks like people are taking the time to "Read" what's in this bill before commenting on it, and how it will apply to them.

One thing is clear, the Canadian consumer is not impressed either. There's been a 2000+ member jump in the past 10 hours at FCFC Facebook National Group. Industry's next move will be to take the consumer out of the equation by stating (already has) that consumers will not be targeted (to try and win them back) which will leave it to a lot of the new media producers here in Canada to defend agaist this attack on our businesses here, but that may change depending on the position of the devide in a lot of these industries, and who's actually more powerful in Canada. Canadian made and born businesses, or American Corporations.

This quite possibly is the worst, and biggest corporate take over I have ever seen. In my oppionion Minister Prentice just sold out Canadian industry, making them unable to compete in a global market. I'll get more in detail about this over the next few days.

ACTA-Gate

noreply@blogger.com (Jason K) — Sun, 25 May 2008 07:02:00 +0000

On Friday wikkileaks leaked a very secret copyright deal in which the US, Canada, EU Governments and a handful of other countries are trying to negotiate without any public consultations. Mostly this is the product of the Bush Administration in the US that's in charge of the wording on this one. Apparently this “trade agreement” would give border security guards and custom agents uncontested privileges to shift through your media devices (even your nice homemade porno from your honeymoon) determining if any found media is copy infringed material. They can then fine you, and confiscate your device, even destroy it.

This is of upmost importance to a lot of DJ’s in my end of the industry that travel the globe performing with burned CD’s, and expensive equipment and software used to play gigs. How are they going to tell if you purchased the music, the music was given to you by the composer, or if you downloaded it. You have no legal recourse or argument you can make to contest the decisions made by these “public servants” under this agreement, and you may one day find yourself heading to a gig without music, or your equipment. It’s best that you get a hold of your public representative about how you feel about this.

Our Ottawa Citizen has provided a bit more in depth coverage on this story, running it as “Front Page” news this past weekend. Michael Geist also provides additional coverage and links to this story as well.

Weekly Buzz Volume #4

noreply@blogger.com (Jason K) — Tue, 06 May 2008 01:40:00 +0000

Copyright Bill Expected Within Weeks!

Reports have been circulating that the new copyright bill is to be expected within weeks prior to the Parliamentary summer break. Will it be a balanced approach which will cradle and help develop new media productions and new distribution channels? Will it be a Canadian made solution for Canadian Industries? Or will it be a complete US style DMCA which inhibits new media production, online distribution and puts horns and pitch forks in the hands of creators in the eyes of the internet community and it's users?

Whatever the case may be, laws that are not developed towards the “reality” of the changes we have seen and are continuing especially in the music industry, these laws will generally be ineffective. There is enough research and evidence presented that can hold up in our Canadian courts that the whole dynamic of copyright and reasoning thereof has changed. One would expect that our Government leaders recognize this change and present a solution towards enhancing, not inhibiting, innovation through the laws which is the overall reasoning behind copyright in the first place. The protection for new media producers to produce in a new digital paradigm where new rules and regulations must be drawn out in a very fair and balanced way, must NOT include models based on a copyright realm from a different era that doesn’t exist today.

Content Creators must understand that if the right balance is not reached and our court systems have to decide the fate of our laws, that this could throw everyone back into limbo and all progress made by both sides of this debate will disappear. This will end up being a very costly mistake. A mistake that in these economic times these industries cannot afford.

As Zeljka Kozul-Wright once put it:

“Owing to diffusion of technical change, it is far cheaper, as it reduces the costs of intermediation and allows consumers greater choice over listening patterns; facilitating the growth of demand-driven patterns of consumption thereby enabling greater consumer participation, and more interactive modes of consumption.”

Those that have refused to follow technical change (within media) are about to find out how costly legislative change will become at a time that legislative change is not needed to ensure growth in this industry, and not welcomed in this economic state. We are currently on the boundaries of healing in this industry, and are enjoying the return of the consumer to the market in the digital realm. The last thing this industry will need is to be set back 10 years, and have to deal with yet another decade long consumer revolt because our legislative body is too busy rolling out the red carpet for lobbyists who are falsifying facts, and protecting monopolies. I guess we’re about to find out.

For my interests as well as my peers in the new media industry, I hope, no, I pray our Government brings an understanding of the changes in my industry, and has in fact brought a very real and balanced Canadian approach to copyright reform.

Weekly Buzz Volume #3

noreply@blogger.com (Jason K) — Mon, 28 Apr 2008 19:11:00 +0000

The Bell Debacle Update:

The CAIP (Canadian Association of Internet Providers) submitted its answer to Bell Canada on the need for throttling Bells networks and wholesale providers on Thursday. It was an answer that I found quite entertaining and very informative as a whole, and does provide a lot of background as to what problems DPI (Deep Packet Inspection) has, including hinting that this technology implemented by Bell and other ISP’s such as Rogers may infact be against our privacy laws here in Canada. From the CAIP’s recent submission to the CRTC:

68. By way of response, CAIP notes that Bell has admitted in its Answer that it is using Deep Packet Inspection (‘DPI”) to shape its competitors’ traffic. While Bell may assert that this technology is only used to examine packet “headers”, the literature on DPI does not support these assertions. For example, the description of DPI contained on the “dPacket.org” web-site defines DPI as follows:

Deep Packet Inspection” (DPI) is a computer networking term that refers to devices and technologies that inspect and take action based on the contents of the packet (commonly called the “payload”) rather than just the packet header. The following analogy helps clarify the role of DPI:
A packet is analogous to a physical postal mail message. The address on the outside of the envelope is analogous to the “packet header” and the information inside the envelope is analogous to the “payload.” DPI is analogous to taking action on that mail message not only based on the address on the envelope, but also making considerations based on the contents of the envelope.

69. CAIP notes that dPacket.org identifies itself as a “non-profit corporation founded for education and scientific purposes to foster and support community interest and progress in deep packet inspection and processing (DPI/DPP).” CAIP further notes that one of the founding “Gold Sponsors” of dPacket.org is Ellacoya, the company that manufactures Bell’s DPI equipment.
70. Even Ellacoya’s descriptions of its DPI equipment do not support Bell’s assertion that it is only examining packet headers and not the payloads of the packets themselves. According to Ellacoya, “[U]nlike most policy-based network devices, the Ellacoya switch can identify traffic based on application signatures in addition to standard TCP/IP header information.” Ellacoya’s product literature also states explicitly that its DPI technology allows a service provider “to identify the application being used” by a particular end-user, but “does not identify the specific files being shared
71. In essence, what this means is that Bell is examining packet headers and inspecting packet payloads in order to determine what type of content is being sent by or delivered to the customers of competitors. Although Bell is quick to point out that it does not examine the actual contents of the packet payloads, it is clear from these descriptions of Bell’s traffic shaping practices that Bell can identify, inter alia, the type of data being transferred, the ISP upon whose network the data is being transferred, an end-user’s intention to acquire certain types of Internet content and the IP address and, hence, the identity of the end-user customer who is sending/receiving the data.

72. As indicated in CAIP’s 3 April 2008 Application, the collection and use of such information by Bell, which in this case would have clearly been done without the prior
consent of the end-user customers so affected, violates the privacy of such individuals.

This could end up a major issue with customers and ISP’s. This basically opens the door now for civil action against these ISP’s for implementing this technology, which is something the CAIP foresees in happening should the CRTC not grant an immediate cease and desist order on the throttling practises as Bell. These points made by the CAIP could very well pave the way to other lawsuits with other ISP’s that use DPI technology, like Rogers for instance, who have NO legal standing on the use of DPI, nor have informed their customers about the use of DPI in their contracts.

This is now in the hands of the CRTC and we have no expected date on when a decision is due.

It’s amazing how us as customers get nailed by these big corporations when it comes to not abiding by our end of contracts made (very swiftly I might add with little or no legal recourse), but as soon as these corporations break their abiding contracts with consumers, the politians, and the publicly funded regulators who are supposed to be protecting the public from this do NOTHING!!

As noted in an earlier blog, the CRTC does not handle “consumer” complains on ISP’s. We desperately need a complaints commission to on the digital end to handle consumer complaints with the ISP’s and are able to act accordingly should ISP’s break their end of the contract with consumers. I urge those following this to write into the Minister of Industry Jim Prentice along with their local politicians, to get a telecom complaints commission set up to handle “consumer complaints” that has the power legally to act on them if necessary.

Public Forum on Copyright Against "Fair" Copyright Debate?

The Who’s Who of the copyright debate is gathering today for a Public Policy Forum around copyright without a key speaker. Howard Knopf a Canadian Copyright lawyer and respected blogger was initially on the list of speakers, but got a slap in the face from this “Public Forum” last week when they uninvited Knopf from the speakers list. Most of the speakers on this list are the ones fighting for stronger copyright policy from Canada, however the sole responsibily to make sure consumers are heard in this forum lies with Dr. Micheal Geist. I have every confidence that Dr. Geist will do very well on this aspect, however feel that someone who’s dealt with the copyright debate before our Justice System on a day to day basis has a strong knowdlege of where our laws are now should have been welcomed and accepted by this forum. Dr. Geist is excellent when it come to the political side of this debate, and feel that Knopf would have added that extra support since he deals with the practical side it on a day to day basis. The fact Knopf was uninvited may question in many academic circles the validity and credibility of this forum since all sides are clearly NOT represented.

With the growing misuse, and misrepresentation of the data copyright lobbyists (which have been “invited” to this forum) are using to make their point with regards stronger policy, the public, governments and industries rely on the academics of the this debate now. Over the past several months, we’ve seen the global community start to slide away from stronger policies pushed by the lobbyists, as more and more questions are raised with regards to the data presented to governments, and the factious need to trump fundamental freedoms over copyright. The argument for stronger polices are not compatible towards the digital reality on these industries not following the consumer to a digital platform, and the logistical nightmare it has caused with some of these industries still trying to cling to the old analog platform. These industries must at some point need to realize and explore opportunities to monetize digital mediums, rather than fighting them. Being a part of the entertainment industry and the internet community the answer is quite simple, but I will have to let my peers and counterparts figure that out on their own. I think a major restructuring of sales and marketing staff is needed in a lot of these industries in order to really understand and compete in today’s marketplace.

Knopf is a well respected expert in his field, and his comments will be very much missed by those attending this forum, however his presentation that he was going to make at this forum is now available in his blog.

Weekly Buzz Volume #2

noreply@blogger.com (Jason K) — Sun, 20 Apr 2008 03:35:00 +0000

On a Positive Note:

One of my favourite digital music stores (http://www.beatport.com/) is now offering RSS feed subscriptions to specific artists. Although you are only notified of the releases, this is a step in the right direction. In an earlier blog, I explained the need for paid RSS subscriptions in the digital realm. For a monthly subscription fee, a music lover “should” be able to subscribe to RSS feeds like you do with channels on digital TV. Music stores could offer up subscriptions based on theme, genre, artist etc, and this be automatically delivered to the consumer. We’re not there yet, but it’s nice to see some experimenting with RSS feeds in the digital distribution channels.

The Bell Canada Situation:

Bell Canada submitted documents into the CRTC with regards to defending its position on P2P Bit Torrent throttling across the board and to those Internet Providers that lease lines from Bell. In its submissions Bell had stated that P2P traffic accounts for 33% of its overall bandwidth use. The submission also noted that a few users of the P2P applications tend to leave them open all the time, and some have multiple P2P applications open all the time on multiple computers on the same connection.

What I don’t completely understand is why Bell isn’t throttling those individual accounts, and instead taking the throttling issue to the point where it is today. Is it really necessary to use DPI techology in the first place? 33% of overall bandwidth use is not even close to really making the point they “need” to throttle P2P applications. I think this will become clear as this issue progresses along with the next submission to the CRTC by the CAIP due out on Monday.

DPI technology as I understand, works great in inspecting packets and identifying them as P2P, but as soon as you throw in certian types of encryption protocols into the those packets which most Bit Torrent programs use now, the DPI technology can have a problem with identifying the packets as those coming from P2P. The solution at least on Rogers and Bells end to this is to slow ALL encrypted traffic to a halt. Because of this flaw with DPI, businesses who rely on encryption protocols such as Hospitals, Doctors, Lawyers, Banks, even network admins are affected dramatically. I do a lot of remote admin support. I use an encrypted connection (I have too) in order to make sure that the connection is safe on my clients end. When Rogers implemented the DPI technology last year to my connection at home, these programs became useless. I could no longer support any remote admin work with my clients, because ALL the encrypted traffic was slowed down. To my knowledge, this is still the case with DPI. An Interesting read on this here at the TekSavvy Forums on DSL Reports on this issue.

On another note, Primus Communications offered up its point of view this week as well to the CRTC calling for immediate relief to those asking for it, along with its support of the CAIP to have Bell immediately stop the throttling of P2P applications. Primus did bring up a good point in its submission:

12. Consistent with the rationale behind Commission’s categorization of GAS service in Decision 98-173, Bell Canada’s unilateral decision to throttle GAS service and stand by that decision in the face of industry protest demonstrates its market power in the wholesale high-speed Internet access market. Clearly, then, the Commission cannot rely on market forces alone to address the competitive impacts and alleged violations of the Act by Bell Canada.

Bell Canada has responded to the Primus Submission stating that:

1. Bell Canada (Bell or the Company) is in receipt of a letter dated 15 April 2008 from Primus Telecommunications Inc. (Primus) submitted as an Answer to the Canadian Association of Internet Providers' (CAIPs') application of 3 April 2008 against Bell Canada's network management practices with regard to Bell's wholesale Internet services. Bell Canada submits that the Primus letter is out of process, and thus should not form part of the record for CAIP's interim relief request.

Should the Commission open this up in a public hearing, there will be in a whole world of trouble for Bell since they just don’t have an adequate defence from a technical stand point, and I think a lot of us tech savvy (no pun intended), new media producers, and advocacy types are watching this like a hawk, and would love to appear before the commission to provide our point of view on this subject, along with a lot of other professionals outside the telecom industries that have to contend with a less secure connection due to DPI implementation. Some of us concerned are also experts in the field of network management, application development, and Canadian New Media development and deployment. It’s clear the Bell lacks the expertise in these area’s from its submissions or is banking on the less than Tech Savvy CRTC's understanding of DPI, and pray that the other ISP’s have enough qualified staff in place to re-butt the utter technical nonsense Bell has spewed out!

The Fall Out PR War:

I’ve been watching quite a few mainstream blogs on the issue with Bell, and what some people have been saying. There have been a few that have sided with Bell on their stance. One of the things that I need to say to these people is; not all of us that use P2P are pirates, or hooligans. That’s a bit of a problem with regards to what the regular media often reports on, and one of the main reasons the music industry is in such bad shape right now.

The P2P channels are used by many new media producers, and software developers as a medium now. Even some artists and developers have made hundreds of thousands of dollars promoting on P2P channels, and it’s utter ignorance of the issues at hand at this point in the conversation to suggest otherwise, or that P2P is responsible from clogging up bandwidth. Reports have been done on this over the years, and it’s http or web traffic that consumes most of the bandwidth.

P2P is often looked back on in a negative way (thanks to the music industry and their mistakes) since it’s continently used as a escape goat by those that don’t completely understand the digital realm, or are used to promoting a certain way, rather than actually moving forward and representing in this new realm, and medium. I guarantee that YouTube sucks way more bandwidth up then P2P, and YouTube has as much of a history of illegal sharing of media as the P2P channels do. It’s a preference over one medium to another. This fight with Bell is about control over the market by a media and telecos giant over what you look at online, and where you get your media from. This has nothing to do with bandwidth.

If you read the submission by Peter Kovacs of Rogers Communications Inc to the CRTC's New Media Project Initiative, it clearly states the direction these telecom companies want to take. That submission can be found here. It's quite clear these ISP's are moving in to secure a monopoly on their preferred medium, by slowing down traffic to a medium they don't want to contend with.

Those who are now exploring how to monetize the P2P and follow the consumer to this medium are being inhibited by big media and teleco’s companies. A lot of new media producers have come to realise the positive impact of the P2P medium, and as soon as they try and capitalize on its power as a medium, the ones in control over the connections have to it step in and stop it. This is something that those in the media don’t need right now, and if Bell gets its way through the CRTC, it’s going to set back the tide of technological evolution in digital media, and end up costing Canadians massive amounts of money in the court systems and insight another more visible rebellion with consumers and ISP’s.

I know of no one that uses P2P on multiple computers and has these applications running 24/7. On top of this, it’s clear that Bell hasn’t utilized nor upgraded to a huge amount of unused bandwidth the government laid in the mid 90’s that remains unused for the most part! The motives for Bell throttling P2P applications can then not be a technical issue, and must be looked on carefully by the CRTC.

Here’s the CRTC on my “consumer” complaint on this issue:

“The CRTC regulates the internet access services that large telecommunication companies such as Bell, Telus and Rogers provide to independent internet service providers. Your service provider is in the best position to evaluate whether it believes its provider or a competitor is involved in inappropriate behaviour, and if so, it can provide the Commission with evidence of any alleged wrongdoing and file a competitive dispute with the Commission. The CRTC cannot deal with customer complaints made on behalf of their internet service provider.

The CRTC has received a formal complaint by the Canadian Association of Internet Providers (CAIP) against Bell Canada requesting that the CRTC order Bell Canada to stop "throttling" the access services Bell Canada provides to CAIP’s members in order to provide high speed internet service to their customers. If you are interested in following the outcome of this application you may do so at the following link:
http://www.crtc.gc.ca/PartVII/eng/2008/8622/c51_200805153.htm ”

My response:

“I think it’s time the publically funded CRTC start listening to the people that pay for these services (the consumer). The CRTC must revisit it’s decision with regards to the way it regulates, to protect the integrity and validity of the principles on which this commission was formed and who it serves to protect. Anything less, and I guarantee the validity of this commission will be called into question in due time by the public it serves.

It’s time that the CRTC gets its head out of the sand, and start dealing with the telecommunications in the digital world. Fax machines are no longer the technology of choice which was the case when this commission last revisited regulation. I would expect some decisions from this commission in the coming months to protect consumers in the digital world. Many of these companies (ie. Bell and Rogers) are not abiding by contractual agreements made with the consumer, and agencies set up to handle consumer complaints outside the CRTC are powerless! The CRTC thus MUST and WILL be involved. This e-mail has been forwarded off to my local representatives, and ministers who are in charge of your funding and direction.”

I would seriously hope the CRTC has consumers in mind when looking at this issue. I have a very strong feeling that should the CRTC not act accordingly and stop BOTH Bell and Rogers from this type of action, consumers will be furious at both the CRTC and our Government.

Too be continued....

Weekly Buzz Volume #1

noreply@blogger.com (Jason K) — Mon, 14 Apr 2008 05:27:00 +0000

I'll be throwing up some things that I'm currently following, on a more weekly basis. DEMONIOD IS BACK and in full swing!

1. After being shut down by the CRIA here in Canada, the popular torrent site is now back online:

http://torrentfreak.com/demonoid-is-back-080411/

2. Copyright Collectives got a tough reality check in the EU last week. EU members are opposed to and struck down laws that would cut internet access off for repeat "copyright infringers", putting forward human rights over copyright concerns, and also furthering the general understanding of the inability of the entertainment industry to move forth with new business models:

http://www.dmwmedia.com/news/2008/04/11/analysis:-three-strikes-strikes-out-end-isp-policing%3F

I strongly think this may end the discussion on making ISP's responsible for "copyright infringement" cases, which the music industry is strongly calling for. More wasted money and time went into this by the music and entertainment lobbyists, it ain't going to happen guys. I called the outcome of this action a few months back when it was introduced. I think it's time to look at ways on making money, and following the consumer, rather then spending insane amounts of money on lobby efforts, which over the past 10 years have done NOTHING for the individual artist except put them in a position of hardship, and turned away fans from content.

3. Bell Canada and Sympatico! Bell is facing 2 major Internet blunders. Last week about 50 Internet Providers that lease lines from Bell filed a complaint into the CRTC with regards to Bell slowing down internet speeds on file sharing networks. A government owned broadcasting company The CBC recently released a legal download via bittorrent last month in an attempt to follow the consumer to new distribution networks, and learn a bit on how to monetize P2P channels. Many Internet Users in Canada had trouble accessing this publically funded torrent file due to ISP’s slowing down the P2P networks. Bell in particular. The CBC is hosting a "no holds barred" conversation with Bell's Chief of Regulatory Affairs, and are taking your questions this week. Should be very interesting:

http://arstechnica.com/staff/nate.ars/2008/04/11/the-cbc-wants-you-to-grill-bell-canada

Comcast (An Internet Provider) in the USA also slowed down P2P channels, however decided to stop this practise after the FCC threatened to hold regulatory hearings on this subject, after a number of complaints and successful lawsuits against Comcast for implementing this technology. Let's hope the same happens here in Canada.

It's also noted that only 5% of users use P2P on Canada's most popular network, which calls into question losses claimed by the CRIA with regards to illegally downloaded music, and the levies we currently have in place to "compensate" this industry for losses due to P2P (I had to put that one in there).

Sympatico also last week was named the worst network in Canada for viruses/spam and 'malicious activity', by the makers of Norton Antivirus (Symantec):

http://www.thestar.com/Business/article/412694

Damn I thought it was http://myspace.com/ ;) I guess I was wrong. Sympatico Members, learn how to use something called “Anti Virus”. Here’s a link to a free anti virus program:

http://free.grisoft.com/doc/download-free-anti-virus/us/frt/0

Net Neutrality

noreply@blogger.com (Jason K) — Fri, 28 Mar 2008 04:54:00 +0000

I’ve always been a strong supporter of P2P technologies, and it's highly misunderstood by the media. As a broadcaster turned podcaster it’s quite easy to see how file sharing if used as a medium can be quite effective with reducing the costs of hosting, and getting your message or works across. Over this past week, Bell announced that it will be “throttling” P2P traffic on a much more massive scale which will include all 3rd party ISP’s that Bell leases lines out to. As a former Bell customer, Bell often chooses business practices that are questionable, often pushing the envelope to a legal line with its customers and clients rather than actually meeting their demands. The need for a Telecom Commission in Canada to protect clients and consumers needs to be fully explained to our political leaders. This commission needs to be able to in force the rules with regards to what is or isn’t acceptable business practices, and this commission needs to be set up now! I'm calling on all you bloggers, and Canadian Consumers to back me up on this and write into your MP's.

Consumers in the telecom industry are often left paying for services, sometimes bound by an agreement or contract where these telecom companies come out short on promised services, support, and leave the consumer paying for less adequate services then was advertised, or agreed upon. The CBC Market Place did a documentary on this called Speed Bumps.

Fines need to be set for these telecom agencies should they break away from contracted services, and a complaints commission set up to deal with a lot of misinformation that consumers have to deal with. It took Rogers several years to even acknowledge they’ve implemented traffic shaping technology, in which the cost was picked up by the consumers and business clients having to hire on extra tech support to trouble shoot a lot of technical issues related to traffic shaping technology, and legal traffic not getting through or slowed down to a crawl. Many businesses have found that encryption technologies, VPN’s, Rogers has also put a threat and was exploring this on FTP servers this past summer, also remote assistance programs that use encryption based connections became useless, costing a lot of time, aggravation, and money. Communications between business and consumers in the virtual world are at a great threat of being abolished by this technology, not to mention New media producers and artists that use P2P technologies as a medium now, and are making sustainable amount of profits doing so.

Bell and Rogers have been on tap with stating that P2P is the major cause for bandwidth consumption. Others have pointed out in 2007, that http traffic surpassed P2P traffic in 2007, and that Youtube represented a major contributor as a bandwidth hog. Maybe we should be trimming down the bandwidth to Youtube as well. I wonder why that's not happening?

A high level source I spoke with in the telecom industry a year ago on the issue of bandwidth, said that bandwidth is NOT the problem here. The Liberal Government in the mid 90’s laid out tons, among tons of high speed lines across Canada that are not even close to being filled to capacity, and won’t be for years to come. This was done at the Tax payers expense, so I think a lot of us taxpayers are left wondering where this extra bandwidth is, and why are these major ISP’s choosing to use technology to impede bandwidth, when they can just purchase more, and why a telecom complaints commission has not been set up to investigate this issue.

After doing some digging around, and knowing the “media” industry as I am a part of that as well, the issue with “traffic” shaping technologies is an attempt by the big media companies to secure advertising profits, and trackable content. In 2007 Peter Kovacs of Rogers Communications Inc. submitted to the CRTC’s New Media Project Initiative, a statement that essentially spells out the future in on demand content online, and potential advertising revenues attached to that. So basically what many have feared about Net Neutrality and inhibiting competition through “traffic shaping” isn’t just a theory, it’s happening. So these media companies put forth their potential advertising profits over the service to consumers, and businesses that have to contend with unnecessary and unproven bandwidth controls, rather than use P2P as a legal venue or medium for advertising, and product distribution.

Situations can be learned from the CBC's recent Bittorrent experiment. Often consumers by the media industry are nailed as pirates when using these technologies, but the CBC has it right on this one, from Guinevere Orvis’s blog entitled “The Inside Story: The making of a legal TV torrent”:

“People realize that if businesses were to embrace BitTorrent distribution long term, they’d need to monetize it and they’re telling us how to do it. It demonstrates that people are particularly interested in the on-demand nature of BitTorrents and they’re downloading because of convenience, not because they’re commercial-free. The key is ensuring that broadcasters find the right balance between monetization and consumer’s tolerance.”

Ms. Orvis goes on to say: “Broadcasters owe it to their viewers to meet their demands, not the other way around.”

I strongly back that comment with regards to everything I’ve posted in pervious blogs. Well said and well done Ms. Orvis, let’s hope those that are in the business of fighting P2P realize this as well. I’d wish Rogers, and Bell both involved with on-demand services, and stakes in broadcasting services nationally would take this to heart.

I would encourage all new media producers to send in submissions of their own to the CRTC's New Media Project Initiative, to ensure regulations are put on media giants that have control over the data pipelines, to play fair. I will be working on a submission and will be travelling to Ottawa to make sure, when the public hearings are held with the CRTC on this subject, that I have a chance to be heard. I urge those in New Media to do the same, and all those effected to write to your MP's and get this telecom complaints commission set up!

Crystal Ball OutlooK

noreply@blogger.com (Jason K) — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 21:15:00 +0000

Over the past year, I have predicted 2 major changes with regards to the music industry. They are about to come true. At an online station I worked for almost a year ago I wrote a press release and stated that broadcasting companies such as radio, will soon be looking to host files on bittorrent. Well, that's about to come true:

http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/2767/125/

Second, and very recently, those of you I am in contact with in the music industry know I've been calling for music subscription services as the way of the future, and a consumer need that must be met. Well again, this is about to come true:

http://www.redorbit.com/news/entertainment/1303336/apple_considers_bundling_itunes/

So what do I predict now in the next few years? A substantial growth in digital sales, in the digital market, and a continuing downward spiral of physical "CD" and "DVD" sales. As consumers digital needs in this market are met, and P2P starts to become a legitimate medium for business rather than copyrights holders fighting P2P, we'll see a massive growth in the digital market as consumers return to the market place. However the fight isn't over. Record companies have now turned their attention to ISP's for "compensation" with regards to the state of the music industry. This again will be another failure and complete waste of money and time. ISP's are already gearing up for the legal battles on 2 fronts. With the consumer on one side calling for net neutrality, and privacy and with record industry demanding more money and hold ISP's liable for non criminal network use.

The final battle with regards to file sharing will begin in a few years time, as file sharing makes it’s depute on wireless networks and devices on the masses. During these few years it will take to settle this, ISP’s will win several landmark court cases which will end the ISP liability issue, and court costs will be staggering and have to be paid by the recording industry that is suffering due to self destruction. Again those that choose to fight wireless file sharing will fail, and by the time this final dispute is settled, shareholders within media companies such as the BIG 4 will be greatly angered since over the next few years will see a dramatic drop in share prices, and industry investment to those that are choosing to fight technology, rather then invest in it. Those fighting for compensation will be basically pushed out of the marketplace eventually by consumers, and content creators.

As the knowledge of self destruction in the recording industry starts to become more clear to those in it, you can expect a flood of artists fleeing to labels that will allow more artist control over their works, and distribution of them.

Media Subscription services will send content directly to your digital media devices, on release. Basically the consumer will not have to go out and search for content. The content they sign up for will come to them.

The Construct of the New Music Industry pt. 1

noreply@blogger.com (Jason K) — Thu, 14 Feb 2008 07:07:00 +0000

This is part 1 of an overall outlook of what I think needs to change to make the music industry more profitable. This part will look at the digital paradigm as it exists through my eyes, and what I’ve witnessed while observing those in this industry. I’m going to touch up on some issues that are specific to my genre of this industry which Electronic Dance Music. It is my belief that a lot of advancements have been made in this genre that can be interconnected with the rest of this industry. This genre is on the leading edge of technology within how music is created and distributed. As pornography is the leading drive behind new technologies within the video market (HD, VCR’s etc), Electronic Dance Music (EDM) would be that leading technical drive within audio and music creation. Part 2 will focus more on the physical retail aspects of these industries, and how they’ve been impacted and present possible changes there as well. I will not be linking in this blog, or naming names. These are just my observations and recommendations to which I’m certain some of the available market data can be linked to.

Many of the lobby groups claim that with the number of legal sites for the purchase of music up, piracy remains still at a very high level. It’s very surprising to me that the business end of the music industry has yet to ask the question why that is, instead of blaming file sharing. This has gone on for a decade now, and must stop! In order for one to take a close look and see the actual problems, we must look at this logically, and like any logical way of thinking, break down the data. So lets zoom in:

1) Labels blame file sharing and the consumers for the demise of the music industry. Why? Because people are downloading off of P2P networks .

2) Why are people downloading off of P2P networks? A lot of the reasoning behind this the lobby groups have spilled out is because of free music.

3) Is free music the sole reason behind P2P? Partly yes, but not entirely. Those that are not in this industry are lead to believe that downloading free music off of P2P is a bad thing, when in fact this industry is built around free promotions, and free music and a lot of industry types use P2P networks to their advantage, and are doing business within the P2P aspects, through promotions, and singing of tracks and artists found on P2P networks.

4) So why then are people not buying music? Well in a lot of cases they are. We’re seeing a lot of conflicting data, and that’s because the market is in a flux right now with a newly emerging industry pushing its way through. Retail sales are down, and digital sales are rising. However digital sales could be rising at a rate of 200% per year if not more right now in my view. Until this new industry pushes through we can’t tell or compare ups and downs, there’s nothing to compare it to, and very little understanding of how it works, which is why major labels and lobbyists are fighting for the old system back that they understand which will NOT happen. Any attempts at trying to get that industry back will result in further losses. It no longer exists. Laws must not be put into place that compensate, or inhibit the new emergence from taking place. The emergence can’t be stopped. Those not doing business in this new emergence have been quite clear on the loss of profits and loss of jobs etc, and will continue down a path of destruction and bring talent down with them, while those that have adapted to it will most definitely profit in this new environment.

5) Labels are claiming that file sharing is the cause for the downfall in profits. Is this true? File Sharing is only to blame for forcing this industry to a new platform. There is no evidence what so ever to prove file sharing is responsible for the major decline in profits. The evidence that’s been shown to the public is completely misleading. When one looks at this subjectively, the evidence of lost profits are at the fault of the industry as a whole for not following the market into the digital realm. It really makes me mad to see governments all over the world cave to the pressures of lobbyist without actually understanding what’s happened and why. I will be careful in our next election to make sure I elect someone with some form of intelligence.

Think about this. We are now a connected society, and the consumer is getting very lazy. For the tech savvy, most of us get our news from feeds or blogs we subscribe to, focusing on key words, phrases. Well P2P works in a very similar manner. I upload my podcasts (as a lot of industry DJ’s and labels do now or have someone do it for them) to the P2P channels, which are then picked up on RSS feeds, and spread out all over the world to different sites, blogs etc.

Those downloading off of P2P channels can subscribe to my podcast using the rss feeds most torrent sites use. So if they are looking for my show they can type in the name of that show, or the *Release Group I use to release the show on P2P, which then the torrent client will pick up, and automatically download for them. Very similar to the Itunes with Podcasts, but on a much more massive scale. It may also surprise you that those downloading off of P2P channels seem to be 90% from the good old USA. We Canadians are at the top of the list for piracy? Have these guys even opened up a torrent program at all, and seen the number of USA IP addresses attached to downloader’s Vs. Canadian. 10+US /1 CDN.

A lot of the age group that buys music are between 13 – 25, meaning that the majority of this age group currently does not have a lot buying power for the legal distribution of music globally online. Gift cards are sold at some physical retailers, but they are not servicing the need of that age group, that wants to do business completely online, and on demand. A lot of them don’t own credit cards, and Itunes (the biggest legal distributor) the last time I checked only had PayPal available for US Residents only. Furthermore there has been some problems with Pay Pal, and the way they sell solutions to online merchants.

PayPal has a system in place that is supposed to protect people from “fraud” and is actively pushing those with PayPal merchant accounts to insist on making sure a customer’s address is verified with PayPal to protect these companies, even if an address is not required for delivery of services. PayPal requires customers to use a credit card in the account holders name to make that address verification possible with those using this service outside the US. I personally went through this when I purchased the World of Warcraft game to which I did not want to run to the mall 40 mins away from me every month to pick up a game card. I don’t and won’t use my credit card for Gaming (my credit card is for emergency only and I don’t provide to anyone online), and the bill by phone option Blizzard Entertainment has was only available to US residents (not that I would do that in the first place). That only left Pay Pal, who was requiring my credit card info for address verification. So now I’m stuck with a purchase of a game I can’t play, or be inconvenienced once every so often to go out and purchase some damn gift card, that takes me 40min completely out of my way. No thanks, I’ll just stick with the games I can play that I purchased and don’t use an online subscription to play with other gamers online.

What’s needed is a global debit card for electronic purchases that’s open up to all countries and all banks, and anyone that’s of legal age to withdrawal money from their own bank account. This is not only coming from someone within the music industry, but an analyst involved and trained in e-business solutions and support. This has plagued a lot of the e-business community for a very long time, to come up with solutions that will sell to everyone from everywhere, which is what’s needed within these entertainment industries in order to profit from the full extent of the digital environment.

The other major problem within this industry comes with pre-released music. Giving away free promo’s to DJ’s, radio stations, and industry types, is based on an old model, that a lot of us DJ’s really like. Basically free music sent out by labels and artists to the Dj’s in hopes that the DJ will play it and it will help with the sale of the product. Let alone it is my belief that P2P may work in the same way, and some do use P2P for legitimate purposes around those beliefs. In my experiences I’ve tracked down on behalf of a few music labels, songs that were floating around P2P and file sharing networks trying to find out how they got there, that somewhere down the line the content creator gave the track to a few friends, or previously handed out the tracks on P2P networks to see what type of response it would create before going to a label, and in the process if people like the track and it’s not available for legal download, it’s going to move through the P2P networks. And then these labels and content creators turn around and blame file sharing networks for the problem. Hello? That’s not the problem. In this new industry if you give these tracks out to anyone but labels for contract consideration, then you need to suck up the losses and move on. Pre-releases, and unreleased promo’s are causing huge issues for labels, artists. Anything that is not available through legal channels, should not be given to anyone. If you do then you need to expect that track to make it on the P2P networks. When I go to the casino, I expect to lose the money I go in with. I don't expect to win.

Another problem with pre-released tracks is that DJ’s play them on their shows or podcasts. A lot of DJ’s use P2P, and a lot of them play bootlegged or *white labelled tracks that can’t be found in stores etc, and mostly on P2P channels, labels that have podcasts are included in this group! This includes some of the top ranked DJ’s worldwide and their sponsored labels. Sometimes those bootlegged tracks get released or signed, but it’s too late to benefit from the full effect of the track when it’s released. DJ’s and labels that play unreleased tracks are not helping this industry, in fact they are contributing to lost profits, which is why you see for the most part ID-ID in track listings. Although some of the top players have yet to adopt this policy when playing tracks that are not available through legal distribution channels.

There have been many times where I’ve listened to other top ranked global DJ’s, and right after the show go and look for a lot of the tracks play listed on legal download stores to find out they aren’t available yet, as many of my own audience does as well. My second look for these tracks if I can’t find them legally as a consumer is within P2P networks. In some cases many of these tracks take many months even upwards of a year to be officially released through the labels. By then remixes and other versions of the track can be found on P2P free. This is why during my shows, I make sure 99.9% of my play listed tracks I’ve played over the past 3 years are released and my audience has a chance to purchase them right after the show. I even point a lot of them on where to get them legally. Those DJ’s that are track listing pre-releases are contributing to the decline of that track once it is released. Consumers want tracks as soon as they hear them. If they are not in the legal channels, they will look elsewhere.

Which brings me to my next point. Consumers now a days, want product on demand, with little effort involved in purchasing them. The overall consensus with consumers is they do want to pay for their music, but on their terms. Future business models in the new media industries must adapt to this by offering pooled services. Sell product in bulk, and theme, artist or genre specific. Dj’s often belong to label pools where the labels throw in all new releases for that month for a monthly fee. There are usually quite a few labels involved that throw tracks into a pool, that services the DJ’s. Same thing needs to happen here. The consumer has a need for pooled or packaged services. A lot of DJ’s in the industry now are relying on free artist pools then paid label pools. I’m often sent tracks directly from the content creators, discreetly. It is my belief that the rights holders (labels) have not and are not servicing even the industry pools successfully. Artists have also resorted to pooling free tracks to their fans as well out of desperation for free promo. This is a huge failure of representation within the label community, to not only meet the demand of the consumer, but even the industries they are a part of. Wake up people. Tougher laws are not the answer, this will continue regardless and labels will keep pushing the blame on the P2P communities rather than fixing this major problem, that’s costing a lot of profits.

Digital Cable TV is a prime example of the consumer need right now. You subscribe to a themed package and get that content bundled. So if you are a consumer looking for the latest in top 40 tracks, then there should be a service available that will provide that to you for a bundled monthly subscription fee (without DRM), and sent right your devices automatically without any effort on the consumers part. Extra content like artists podcast can be factored into this as well. This will not only give a major boost to new artists in the music scene these labels are promoting, but also meet the demands of the consumer.

P2P file sharing needs to be used more of an advertising and promo medium to generate interest in the artists, labels, products, or services. Free music is part of this, however it's how one uses this free music to their advantage that can make a significant difference. Artists in my genre (Electronic Dance Music) are also DJ’s and have some up with an incredible solution to use P2P to their advantage by providing release groups, and torrent sites professionally mixed and produced podcasts. This all together supports our community and uses this medium to their advantage. However it is important to note that the full effects (negative or positive) of P2P and file sharing cannot really be measured accurately until the above needs of the consumers are met first. For those that constantly blame file sharing for their problems need to look closely as to where the blame really needs to lie at this point before we can move forward. Because over the past 10 years these needs have not been met, the negative effects of file sharing being the only culprit on these industries is an assumption, and not based on fact. There are not actual facts available, just a lot of industry numbers that suggest a shift in the markets to which these industries for whatever reason are refusing to service properly. I bet my reputation, that once these needs are met, file sharing will represent a very small issue, if an issue at all.

Rather than looking at and putting money into developing solid solutions, a lot of rights holders have spent vast amounts of money lobbying, and tromping on the fundamental rights of society on a claim that they cannot prove with any certainty, but does not have merit, nor is acceptable under the circumstances. I think it's time to change towards a more constructive and positive approach to the issues at hand.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

*Release Groups: Sort of like an underground digital label on p2p networks. Basically people that have made their names as producing the best quality stuff on P2P and are sometimes used legally to push out content by the industry to maximize downloads due to the reputation within the P2P networks, thus maximizing the promotional potential of the material released.

*White Labels: A DJ Term used to describe a recording or remix that has yet to clear or purchase copyrighted samples used in these recordings or remixes for sale, distribution, or radio play.

Lawrence Lessig - On Free, and the Differences between Culture and Code

noreply@blogger.com (Jason K) — Wed, 13 Feb 2008 04:25:00 +0000

This is an important lecture someone posted in the Fair Copyright for Canada group, that has a lot to do with how new media is used today, historical references within side the music industry that are relivent to todays debate. It's pro creative commons, but a good start to really kind of get down to the actual real issues of this debate. Copyright is a small part of it. It's about an hour an a half long. so view when you have some time.

If this embed doesn't work, you can view and download this video from the following link:

http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=7661663613180520595&hl=en-CA

Also downloadable for play on your Ipod (right click and save as): Here

Roll call for Artists and Governments

noreply@blogger.com (Jason K) — Wed, 06 Feb 2008 04:20:00 +0000

I came accross and interesting blog, and it represents a lot of what I've heard from Artists and Creators over the past several weeks, who are agaist reforms that will punish those from using P2P. This serves as an example of what the Canadian Government will have to answer for should they put forth a bill that represents more industry lobby group efforts rather then the actual data.

An artist recently released an album on torrent and P2P networks, with his feelings on the subject at hand. I think his views are consistant with the market data.

From: http://www.p2p-blog.com/item-479.html

"Record labels aren’t meeting the demands of their customers. That’s why music piracy is destroying the music industry. No matter how many people you sue, how many torrent sites you take down, or how many idiotic methods you come up with to protect the date (Key2Audio, DRM, etc)…people will always prevail at doing what they want to do. At some point the industry needs to come to grips with that fact that their business model is changing, and they have to devise new business plans inside the parameters of the situation."

Stop, take a moment and look!

noreply@blogger.com (Jason K) — Mon, 04 Feb 2008 06:03:00 +0000

Freedom of Expression, Freedom of Choice, Freedom of Speech. Sometimes people forget just how far reaching music has become, and what has arisen from it.

Copyright Predictions

noreply@blogger.com (Jason K) — Tue, 29 Jan 2008 23:58:00 +0000

Over the past few months, I’ve expressed my personal beliefs on this subject. I’ve all looked at market data both for and against file sharing and peer to peer technologies. I’ve asked questions with regards to content creators, and labels that are both for and against the use of P2P. There’s one key ingredient missing to this debate. Presently there is absolutely no first hand evidence to support any claims that P2P has had a negative or positive influence on the effected industries. So that being said, this is what I think our new copyright legislation should look like for us to move forward. Here are a few key points.

1) Regulation, or compensation for P2P file downloading will immediately stop. No levies, and no lawsuits to sue downloaders. Protections will be put in place through laws to make sure the protections of consumers rights. Rights holders must realize that the market data suggests a consumer shift to a new marketplace that is evolving. Due to the course that rights holders have taken globally, this has generally put a very bad image to the consumer on the effected industries. Rather then conceding to this, and following the consumer to a different market platform, rights holders are in effect responsible for pushing the consumer away from product, and are responsible for their own losses.

2) Rights Holders should and will have the choice on what is done with their content. Rightfully so. A system will be set up on a “notice to notice” basis, giving the admins of these sites fair time to take content down, or “negotiate terms” for a licence to host this content based on the sites income. Should these admins NOT co-operate with regards to this, then the government will clearly spell out fines for that, and apply these licence fees, and the site will be taken down, and those admins held liable. However this does not and will not include the consumer on this issue or ISP network traffic to the consumer. ISP’s will NOT shoulder any responsibility on this issue with regards to a consumer privately downloading content through their networks . These issues are between the rights holder and those that are admins of the site that's hosting the material, not ISP's and not with consumers. ISP's and hosting providers should only get involved when there is a problem with regards to Admins not acting on the take down requests if they are hosting the site on their servers. Currently the CRIA is “negotiating” with P2P networks to reach a compromise on this issue, and the CRIA cited an example of this in a recent news conference. To quote "Deals are being made". The government must ensure those "Deals" are fair for each party, and a complaints commission set up to monitor this.

3) Broad consultation within the consumer groups will start, in order to help the effected industries who are claiming losses get into the new market place. What the consumer wants and needs is of more importance to this discussion then the needs of the rights holders. Everyone needs to agree to that, in order to move forward. In the past 10 years, effected industries have been biting at the hands that feed them. In order to move forward, the data suggests a wide area of misunderstanding and misrepresentation in the new market place with regards to what consumers want, and how they are getting it. By allowing the consumer to choose what they want, will in effect bring them back on masses to the new market place, and give direction on those industries on how to proceed. Forcing consumers back into the marketplace isn't advisable, and over the past 10 years attempts have been made to do this which resulted in consumers moving away from the marketplace, instead of back to it. We need to learn from our mistakes. Basically the consumer is fighting back for what they want. Maybe servicing their needs is a better approach.

4) Corporate Gain on Copy Protected works. If you make money using copy protected works, then there should be a fair system of compensation and licensing. However it will be based on total income, and will allow new business models to emerge, and make profits as well. It will not be based on models from a different era. This will not include network traffic that ISP's are providing to consumers.

5) A very big public and international effort to update the WIPO treaty to this era and acutely depict the new market place will commence, and include the consumer. This should also include protection for content creators to be able to voice concerns, or take action agaist rights holders on a global scale should they use their content in a legal matter in which they do not approve, or was not outlined in the signed contract.

With some major “CSI” on the research, this is what I conclude should happen, on the key points of this debate.

CRIA E-Mail

noreply@blogger.com (Jason K) — Tue, 29 Jan 2008 07:05:00 +0000

I wrote to the CRIA yesterday to request some additional information.

I wrote: "I’m an independent investigative journalist looking for a break down with regards to money that your organization has claimed to have lost with regards to piracy. I’m also looking for total negative expenses occurred (advertising, distribution, production etc) from period of years between 2005 – Current. I would also like to see the total gross profits from those years, and how much compensation has been paid to your organization members with regards to levies, and royalty payments to creators, here in Canada. So if you could please provide me with a copy of these reports, that would be appreciated."

CRIA: "Hi Jason – your email was forwarded to me. For industry sales figures, please go to the CRIA website (http://www.cria.ca/) and click on “statistics.” You can get additional industry figures from Nielsen SoundScan. You may also be aware that Industry Canada has done periodic studies of Canada’s music industry re: sales/profits/etc. (These are their own numbers). As for expenses, royalties, etc., we do not compile such figures at CRIA. Frankly, I doubt the music labels – major or indie – would provide that, but you could try. "

I completely understand why labels will not release this info with regards to their expenses, royalties etc.. It's due to the competitiveness of this industry. However uncomfortable that sounds to them if these lobbyists want to get all warm and fuzzy in our personal lives with more controls, and compensation, then one would expect the same on the other foot to make sure those requests are warranted and valid. The government should be auditing these companies to ensure our protection.

The reason for my request to the CRIA is based on this:

From: http://www.dime-eu.org/node/477#comment-1

"File sharing and downloading not only increases market exposure but significantly reduces marketing and advertising costs. File sharing, as the imminent dominant mode of music consumption, is proving to be more "efficient" than simply purchasing pre-recorded music. Owing to diffusion of technical change, it is far cheaper, as it reduces the costs of intermediation and allows consumers greater choice over listening patterns; facilitating the growth of demand-driven patterns of consumption thereby enabling greater consumer participation, and more interactive modes of consumption. Global consumers as well as new producers can benefit greatly from the new P2P file sharing technologies that should be facilitated and legalised, rather than hindered. "

How much money currently are these labels getting from the above? Are controls, and compensation actually needed? Let's start asking these questions.

Copyright Discussion

noreply@blogger.com (Jason K) — Mon, 28 Jan 2008 03:59:00 +0000

I just wanted to point out one commentsfrom the Fair Copyright for Canada groups discussion board that I believe is dead nuts. I think us Canadians are about to put up one hell of a fight.

One Poster Writes:

"Before the Internet, artists and performers were entirely at the mercy of these 'bigwigs' as they did have the only real means to expose creative works to the greater purchasing public. It must be said, however, the Internet has done much to expose talent that would otherwise have gone unnoticed. You see, the studios keep pumping out albums and films by the same performers and artists. While this is often excellent, and many artists are pushed to greater heights by being exposed to diverse talent, and larger production budgets, as can be seen in recent years, this strategy often fails.

Too often are consumers burdened with what would otherwise not sell but for the marketing and hype machines of the big media conglomerates. I'm certain I'm not alone in recognizing the fact that music seems to be in some revolving door framework, where the same old whores are tarted up and put out for sale again. This is at the expense of young and fresh talent that is being insulted and kept back from their true potentials by the 'status quo' The real tragedy is that these people have wasted the lives of many artists who would otherwise had great creative careers had they not been stifled by the copyright apparatus we currently have.

Sure bring on copyright reform I say, lets all get a good look at how it works, and make a fair and ABOVE BOARD assessment of the economic, cultural, and sociological impacts. Lets have different tests to see what fits best, and perhaps, through time and compromise we can come up with a solution that fits everyone long term. You can be guaranteed that any legislation that doesn't take a measured approach will be met with fierce resistance."

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This is what I and others have been advocating for. There's some legitimate concerns with regards to the way this whole copyright dilemma has all played out, and it's important to note that there is currently an industry based on using P2P and file sharing. A tremendous amount of money is being made. This debate should no longer be centered on consumers compensating the industry for copyright. It's slowly turning into a debate as to where we are now, which is in a new era and market place, and where do we go from here. I assure you a lot of the downfall that's been blamed on consumers has started to and will continue to point to a lot of people lobbying for tougher controls.

A self inflicted wound caused a lot of the down fall of the music industry. Consumers rebelled against the industry, because this industry did not service this new era and what they wanted instead trying to turn back the tide of technological change thus causing a lot of financial damage not to mention careers.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=TnzFRV1LwIo

Watch the above link. Now ask yourself how much this would cost on regular rotation on TV? 1:30 min commercial at approx 1.5 million per 30 seconds for a primetime network. That's equal to 4.5 million to have this spot aired and get a lot less views then this advert currently has. Now, take that cost, and apply it to throwing it on Youtube, or file sharing networks. The cost to do this is $0. This company just made a major profit on this investment without an expiry date. It’s the gift that keeps on giving, even 6 months later.

Now take this and apply it to file sharing and the music industry. You upload a song to a file sharing network, or allow your fans to spread it around. Avril Lavigne (a member of the CMCC)is a strong supporter of using P2P file sharing to her advantage. Reports released from the IFPI state she's #1 in digital sales. They then use this opportunity to express concern on our copyright laws. What? You’ve got to be joking me? P2P offers a much cheaper way to promote and distribute product image, which is what you use to sell your product in this new market, as Avril is a prime example of why the consumers and P2P should be left untouched.

The CRIA and RIAA would have you believe that losses that have occurred in this industry are a result of pirating and stealing. Where are they getting these estimates from? How do they know what these numbers are? What are they comparing this too? They are basing this on a system and marketplace that isn't valid anymore, yet they keep pumping money into it. Making consumers compensate content creators for royalties when they are relying on a product and service consumers don't want anymore, plus banking money from P2P promotions and advertising, seems a bit aggressive, and unwarranted. Questions need to be asked within the content creators as to how much money they lost with regards to this course and direction that has been taken by their representation, and act on it!

The reasoning behind this decline is a consumer revolt on the product. The consumers wanted mp3's, instead what they got were letters in the mail to appear in court. They wanted freedom of choice, instead they were hammered with DRM, and malicious code. This created a lot of bad feelings towards the industry as a whole, which content creators not only need to understand why, but who’s responsible. In reality, the market demanded more availability to downloadable content without restrictions on media purchased, and a means in which to purchase it virtually. This is called On-Demand and is the future within the entertainment industries.

Consumers are slowly returning to the market. This is not with regards to strong copyright laws or attempts at deterring P2P users. Many people especially in the US and around the world still use file sharing. Consumers are returning because the demand for online music stores and on demand media is being met. Supply and demand. However, a lot of damage has been done with regards to the image of the music industry, which was self inflicted, that it may be a long time before this market flourishes again. That will depend on the industry recognizing what's happened and make the music industry more consumer friendly rather then blaming the consumer and other industries for their mistakes.

The continued efforts of these lobbyists to make the public or anyone but themselves liable for damages on the royalty basis will just continue to push consumers away from product. Rules need to be set with regards to corporate gain on creative works, but consumers can no longer be blamed for this downfall. What's needed is a closer look by our government, and many governments around the world and by the Canadian public who are beginning to see this through undeniable facts, and develop laws around the market place as it stands today, not with regards to lobbyists demanding public compensation for their own mistakes. In fact it is my firm opinion these industries owe our government and public an explanation for levies that were meant to offset piracy, but were instead used to cover up very big mistakes these companies have made.

I understand completely the need for protection with regards to copyrighted works. However this debate can’t relove around an era that no longer exists in order to reach a fair balance. This discussion needs to be based on royalties from corporate gain, not from the consumer. If you have looked at the numbers and market data as I and others have and will be doing in the future, it’s quite clear that there has been absolutely no losses that the consumer is responsible for. In fact there’s been a major gain in profits because of the use of P2P.

Canada and other countries need to rethink the WIPO treaties that were signed over a decade ago, or update those treaties to include the market place as it stands today. To ratify this treaty as it stands now without consideration of today’s market place and the use of P2P within it, will be a huge economic and political mistake.

Copyright Reform Updates

noreply@blogger.com (Jason K) — Wed, 23 Jan 2008 04:40:00 +0000

I haven't been posting blogs here for a while. I apologize. It's been a very busy month with the holidays and getting sick for a few weeks with the flu. To bring everyone up to speed on the issues currently at hand:

We are seeing quite a lot of responses from key players in this new copyright reform debate, which I am very happy to see. We have started a public debate on the issues, with a wide range of idea's coming from creators, and songwriters within this industry. However one thing that's remaining clear throughout this debate is the bitter divide between the lobby groups, and those that are currently creating content within the music industry.

Lobbyist like the CRIA, MPAA, and the Canadian Copyright Collation have now teamed up on this debate, to try and steer this conversation away from music and what's happinging on that front which is at upmost important to this debate, and the thoughts of an American Style Campaign against our rights. However....

One very important thing has come out of this debate. The music industry now very vocally acknowledges in the mp3 version of this meeting (which I will provide a snippit of tomorrow) on all sides that the US Lawsuits meant to deter file sharing is not in the best interest of it's members and not working (yet still going on against the wishes of several very well known Canadian acts who have been included in some of these lawsuits, who don't approve of them, and have yet to show any sign of slowing down, or stopping), and that they want to make ISP's more responsible by limiting, tracking and censoring content of its users making the ISP's legally liable for any infringement, which is a massive breach of user privacy, and many ISP's had issues with the last time we went through this debate in 2004 with even offering up user information to these companies for lawsuits. This approach is the “pipe dream” of the CRIA, it will never happen.

I was 100% dead nuts on my post with regards to the Canadian reaction to this proposed bill a few months ago. Canadians banded together from all industries and walks of life to make sure our voices were heard, and effectively delayed government from introducing this bill. I will expect this bill to vanish into thin air should ISP's be required to get involved with inhibiting content. It will not see the light of day, as it will give the political opposition parties more ammunition to bring this minority government down and head into another election. I can guarantee this 100%.

I don’t think the government would look seriously into this. In fact I think the up and coming legislation will be more based on meeting the needs of consumers, and helping these industries let go of older business models, and develop a more consumer orientated approach to get them back into the market but in a digital realm, rather than stripping rights away from the people who are needed to create income for these industries, and forcing them back into the market place which has failed very miserably State side.

End the war with consumers, provide everyone with virtual payment means, and this will all stop. That would be a very true Canadian Response to this issue. How it’s done remains a battle for the government to figure out, but I think the CRIA is in a very weak position here with regards to advocating on behalf of the industry. It's credibility has been distroyed by non bias research. This industry as a whole finds this in failed attempts here in Canada and with its US counter part to change the market to service a business model that is no longer relivent to this debate or discussion, and with a growing majority of major acts speaking agaist the RIAA, and CRIA's war on consumers, and leaving major labels who are waging these wars (which was played down by the CRIA's Graham Henderson when today he referred to Madonna as a "bitch and rich" and that those who have branded their names can afford to do what they want with respect to the way they provide their content, offering absolutely no real intelligence or understanding as to why these acts are leaving major labels). It's important to note that Madonna a few months ago, completely split from the traditional industry's way of doing things, and her label Warner Music, who is amoung the labels the RIAA and CRIA represnt based on a shift in this industry towards digital content that was not being recognized by these major labels.

The Canadian Privacy Commissioner raised up her concerns with regards to the up and coming legislation. We do need clear rules with regards to copyright protection, the challenge remains on this Government in very weak economic, and political times to provide legislation that is balanced on putting consumers rights and needs first. I don’t envy the task, and call into question as to why the Government would even think about changing the rules based on current market research. Consumers, and fans are the ones that buy this product, and generate income for content creators to survive. It’s best not to go to war with them which is something this industry is doing in the US and now starting in Canada. It's got to STOP especially now. We need real solutions, to real problems. Not solutions that are based on facts that are misleading governments and the public like we are hearing from the CRIA.

Even though we won't see lawsuits here, but if the CRIA by luck get's its way, Canadians none the less will rebel very strongly on the privacy right issues, which further distances these lobby groups from coming up with a Canadian based solution since they still have no idea what the word “Canadian” means, considering our history with privacy laws the last time we had this debate. Our supreme court ended up putting a stop to these lawsuits and P2P became legal. You think they would learn by now.

The composers, songwriters, and musicians of Canada (that the CRIA claims to represent) came out with a proposal (however unwarrented based on already growing profits P2P has generated) that puts the consumer first and is Canadian based, then this recent proposal from the CRIA. The CRIA completely shut the door on this proposal. I wonder why that is? Maybe the government needs to look at who’s advocating for who in this debate more closely. I think content creators, songwriters, and musicians have made it very clear who represents their interests in this debate. Themselves. It's about time!

Rebuttal To CRIA News Conference

noreply@blogger.com (Jason K) — Wed, 23 Jan 2008 04:15:00 +0000

I just wanted to re-butt some information with regards to the below link, and the attack of the Fair Copyright for Canada Facebook group and on Michael Geist.

http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/2601/125/

http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/features/editorialboard/080121_Copyright.mp3

I listened to this news conference in its entirety, and have a few points in here I wish to express which will be sent out to the Minister of Industry and the PMO’s office.

Fair Copyright For Canada’s membership includes quite a few members from various industries, professionals, and regular Canadians that are concerned about copyright legalisation and what it will mean to them especially with fragile economy right now. Also what this will mean for our rights as citizens and consumers, and what this will mean for businesses in the digital world. There are a few (which includes these lobby groups today) who are not read up on the issues with regards to what our group here is about. It is up to the members of this group to read what we are about here before commenting, and something we would have expected from those who are educated enough to be advocating on behalf of Industries. Those that don’t make up a few small percentage of our membership. The biggest mistake from this news conference was to actually say to visit this group and see for themselves. I can find no recent posts made about our members wanting “free music”. We welcome all new visitors from this news conference, and one quick glance at this group will tell you just how misguided the information has been relayed to you today actually is. A copy of the principals for Fair Copyright for Canada is located:

http://www.faircopyrightforcanada.ca/my-fair-copyright-for-canada-principles/

It’s at upmost importance to note while some are calling this new legislation the Canadian DMCA and modeled around the American laws can be quite correct in that assumption due to political moves this government has made recently which include with meeting key American stake holders, and American influenced lobby groups, fragmentation of beliefs within various industries in Canada on where Copyright should go, and pulling this legislation for further consultation just to site a few examples. It is also quite clear that NO consultation on a wide basis was given to this bill prior to this group being formed due to the amount of recent public statements made from various key players. So Fair Copyright for Canada is not an advocate for pirates that want a free ride, we want talk and we’ve effectively achieved this at least we hope we have.

I just wanted to also point out, and the Minister needs to be aware of, is very conflicting points of view that these lobby groups have within their own industries. To cite a few examples:

http://www.songwriters.ca/studio/proposal.php

The CRIA’s response to its own industries songwriters proposal “A pipe dream”:

http://www.reuters.com/article/musicNews/idUSN0432940320080105?pageNumber=1&virtualBrandChannel=0&sp=true

http://www.musiccreators.ca/wp/

To quote the music Creators Collation who’ve also supported the Songwriters proposal:

“We are a growing coalition of Canadian music creators who share the common goal of having our voices heard about the laws and policies that affect our livelihoods. We are the people who actually create Canadian music. Without us, there would be no music for copyright laws to protect.

Until now, a group of multinational record labels has done most of the talking about what Canadian artists need out of copyright. Record companies and music publishers are not our enemies, but let's be clear: lobbyists for major labels are looking out for their shareholders, and seldom speak for Canadian artists. Legislative proposals that would facilitate lawsuits against our fans or increase the labels' control over the enjoyment of music are made not in our names, but on behalf of the labels' foreign parent companies. “

It is also important to note as to where these statistics and reports are coming from. We have very conflicting research that has been done. Industry sponsored research these lobby groups has been pumped out claiming a lot of hardship is a bit outdated and I personally can find no longer creditable. 2 Government reports backed up also by research from the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development claiming quite the opposite is happening. I think this along with fragmented points of view in the music industry would be enough to quite damage the credibility of those lobbying based on hardship within this industry. The gains they spoke of world wide, P2P file sharing may have contributed to, not with regards to laws and legislation leading people back into the market. There is no evidence to support the CRIA's claims on that, in fact EMI is currently thinking about scaling back some major funds to these lobby groups due to an ineffective campaign to change the market place:

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20071128-report-emi-looking-to-slash-funding-for-riaa-ifpi.html

I invite the Ministry to view what was done recently in a PR Campaign with regards to Global Warming to cite an example of what these lobby groups are playing up to. There’s a CBC documentary called “The Denial Machine”, which is suggested viewing on conflicting information on the research that was done, and the PR battle that was fought. I caution the Minister to take a very close look at where these industry lobby groups are getting their information from, and who’s sponsoring it. The CRIA was recently caught at such an attempt:

http://itincanada.ca/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=355&Itemid=2

What’s also important to note here, as we head into troubled times with our economy, is that this government treads closely on not creating an environment that will claim war on consumers rights and buying powers. There is still a wide spread need for a virtual payment option that needs to be open to all (not just those with credit cards) which is something these major labels are still battling with. Pay Pal is an option with some major distributors, but in some circumstances Pay Pal does require an Address Verification method that can only be achieved with the account holders credit card outside the US. Imposing restrictions on users without fulfilling the need and direction this market has taken, may very well have a devastating effect across the board, and push those that purchase the majority away from the market rather then back to it.

The Canadian Copyright Reform Derailed!

noreply@blogger.com (Jason K) — Tue, 11 Dec 2007 06:07:00 +0000

A major victory for consumers, as a proposal to implement a very outdated and unconstitutional treaty has been put aside due to a grass roots public outcry to which will eco throughout the world in the coming days. Micheal Geist lead the charge by opening up a “Fair Copyright For Canada” group on Facebook which has attacked over 13,000 Canadians in 1 week from all walks of life, and industries that strongly oppose going after consumers in mass US style lawsuits, and putting digital locks on almost every type of digital media, which would inhibit the fair use of products. This group has produced several thousand e-mails to the Industy Minister, local Mp's and political leaders. One of those responses I got was posted in an earlier blog.

The introduced bill that we were told to expect Tuesday was highly thought to have the interests of lobby groups, and foreign Governments first, rather then looking at the facts, and people this would impact and potentially damage; Canada's own industries. This sends a strong message to these lobby groups who have been fighting for this bill. Canadian consumers now stand together and united with Canadian industries. These lobby groups are welcome to sit at the table with other industries in finding a better more solid solutions to put forth to our Government based on fact, world wide markets, and that would better protect consumers rights. Foreign lobbiest and those that want to harm consumers are quickly becoming irrelevant on this issue now, unless they change their tunes in the very near future.

Congrats to Micheal Geist and kudos to us bloggers and members of the facebook group who have been making a path for the Canadian spirit and voice to be heard! This has now entered the international press, and is expected to be reported on a lot world wide in the coming weeks, and months. This looks good on our "trading partners" that have criticized us in the past, and tried to pull a fast track on this reform.

“Fair Copyright For Canada” facebook group members this past Saturday at our Ministry of Industry’s open house in Calgary Alberta (the first question is in French, the others are in English):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JF_dHu5fRAk

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rqXtSrJ_Cw8

MP Question Period on Monday on this proposed tabling of this Bill:

http://mycelium.chanterelle.ca/en/video/play/id/475da13c9953a