Multinational record industry shill calls Canada's new copyright bill "a license to steal"

Discuss

17 Responses to “Multinational record industry shill calls Canada's new copyright bill "a license to steal"”

  1. Ugly Canuck says:

    Did somebody say “Stampeders”?

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0IRjl3SWC2U

    Sweet.

  2. Baldhead says:

    Of course, what he means to say is that only record companies should be able to steal music. How’s that infringement lawsuit against the CRIA doing?

  3. teapot says:

    Where do I sign up?

    I mean…. where does my, er…. friend sign up?

    I really hope there is an afterlife…. So I can punch jerks like Graham Henderson in the face, in person. Oh, and thank him for all the stuff I ‘borrowed’ over the last 15 years.

    Asshole.

    You know what ima gonna do every time some jackass like Henderson opens his trap and spreads their one-sided misinformation? Hit ‘em where it hurts. Hey…. Grahamy boy… I notice that The Black Eyed Peas are listed on your site for the amazing achievement of: “Quintuple Platinum – 400,000 Units”. Now, we all know that after selling that many copies neiter you, nor the Black Eyed Peas needs any more money… so here is where people can get it for free.

    G Fck Yrslf (saved you the effort this time anti)

  4. Henry says:

    Yet anyone can go out and get a multiple DVD copier anywhere. Oh, that’s right, its not the copier that commits piracy, its people that commit piracy.

  5. Anonymous says:

    “Once this bill is passed, you could go online and steal every movie that’s ever made, every book, and every song, put them on your hard drive, admit liability, and write a $5,000 check. That would be the full extent of it — and it would be the first rights holder who would get all the money. Nobody else would get a cent. It’s close to saying that for people who want to steal stuff, there’s a compulsory license of $5,000.”

    Well, only in the same way that there’s a charge of 18 years of your life for a murder; or a £60 charge for speeding; or a £50 fee for parking wherever you want.

    That’s kinda how the law works buddy; do you think it would make sense to bankrupt an individual for the digital ‘theft’ of an asset that only has intellectual value?

    Anyway, what does this guy think the average value is of an individuals private collection of illegal downloads? If we’re just talking media, minus the packaging, distribution and middle man mark-up of course; then it’s probably far below £5,000. Think 5c for a music track, and about 50c for a movie – once you get rid of the costs that they’re actually saving.

    IMO they should only really be going after the commercial folks anyway, they’re the only ones really ‘losing’ them money, as they’re taking cash that would have gone to them.

    I could download ‘Spice World the Movie’ and watch it; bit they haven’t lost any money from that, could I would NEVER buy it. However I guess it’s unlikely someone would have a vast collection of media they don’t like, that’d just be odd.

    But you do have to consider … If I downloaded every film, song and TV program; then you haven’t really lost that much money; because I could have never bought all of those items in my lifetime anyway; it’s theoretical money you’ve lost, money you’d never of had – stealing something that remains in your possession. Past a certain point there becomes no actual victims without the prospect of sharing.

  6. Andrew says:

    Mike at Techdirt notes that this is pretty expensive for a compulsory licence.

    It’s difficult to think of a sentence that shows anyone more out of touch than that. Would anyone really want to pay $5,000 (not an insignificant sum by any means) for purely a non-commercial compulsory license? Whenever various compulsory licenses have been discussed, they’ve usually been in the range of $5/month or so. To pretend that anyone will just pay up $5,000 for non-commercial copying is just silly.

    At $5 / month, I can buy 83 years’ worth of compulsory licensing for $5,000.

  7. funkyderek says:

    It’s close to saying that for people who want to steal stuff, there’s a compulsory license of $5,000.

    Yes it is. So close. Follow the logic and you come up with licenses for those who want to view or listen to stuff – nobody wants to steal a movie, they just want to watch it. That is the only way that the music and film conglomerates have a hope in hell of getting anywhere near $5000 from me.

  8. DarthVain says:

    Nothing to see here just the CRIA crying about not getting their pound of flesh.

    I mean we ALREADY, EVERYONE of us, pay a “Private Copying Levy” on various electronic media assuming that we are all pirates anyway, and that these materials are only used for that purpose. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_copying_levy

    On top of that by far the BIGGEST copyright infringer (I love how they keep using the word steal intentionally as it is more provocative) is the CRIA itself! They have a 6 BILLION dollar lawsuit against them for withholding royalties from artists. Using their own (CIRA) figures.

    This guy isn’t worth listening to. At some point you have to look at pity on the rabid dog barking and salivating all over the place, and for the greater good just put them down and out of their misery. Out of touch of reality I think is an understatement.

    After seeing what has transpired in the USA, as well as here in Canada, I think I speak for the majority now that has VERY little sympathy for these guys. Pay the Artists for sure, but not those bloodsuckers.

  9. classic01 says:

    Maybe they should jack up the cap to one hundred million dollars!

  10. zio_donnie says:

    Mr CRIAA president, dude go on strike and rally your RIAA pals and unions and get to the street to protest the unfair law. Like the rest of us.

    Also F***k you.

  11. bbbaldie says:

    I have this to say about that.

    I haven’t bought music from anywhere but Russia in many years.

    I’m willing to send some bucks the artists’ way, and even some the record companies’ way, but I steadfastly refuse to support the RIAA, or any other mafia organizations ostensibly there to “protect rights.”

    The ball’s in your court, artists and record companies. What I won’t do is patronize Amazon, iTunes, or especially CD’s in any form.

  12. lasttide says:

    You’ve got to admit that the guy is right about this one, unless the language is $5k per act of infringement. With a $5k cap, it becomes uneconomical to bother to bring a lawsuit against infringers due to high lawyer costs… OK, I should stop writing now. Great bill guys.

  13. Anise Shaw says:

    It’s okay, we’re going to chuck the conservative government out soon anyways. The bill will die on the floor and we can keep our sweet haven for peer to peer in Canada.

    I mean, the CBC uses bittorrent. It’s actually pretty awesome.

  14. IronEdithKidd says:

    It’s close to saying that for people who want to steal stuff, there’s a compulsory license of $5,000.

    Fucking stealing, how does it work? This dude doesn’t know.

  15. deckard68 says:

    $5,000 is more than the life savings of many people. Canada’s Henderson sounds like he’s as out of touch with real people’s lives as the American (I mean United Statesian) millionaire politicians are.

  16. William George says:

    This guy makes me want to download some Canadian music.

    Stampeders, perhaps?

Leave a Reply