quote:

Originally posted by Drizzt:

quote:

Originally posted by Shan-Lyn:
[...]
As already mentioned, it's not hard to dowload videos from YouTube, Google, MySpace, etc.
Despite the quality (for some viewers) being 'poor', the 'pirate' can easily take the downloaded video and improve it to a better quality.
[...]
Shan-Lyn

LOL, Youtube/Google/any video/audio in a lossy format CANNOT be improved to a better quality. The information lost from the original source (DVD/Bluray/HDTV) is lost forever. Once you have a video/audio file in AVI/MP3 etc you cannot obtain the original DVD/CD from it. Pieces of information have been erased, they are lost, and from a lossy source you cannot try to take them back.

Applied to the video problem, you can convert a youtube video from his tiny source (320x240 I think it is) to a DVD resolution (720x576) but the image just get blured, you cannot rebuild the lost pixels like in a CSI chapter. That fiction isn't true. The computer software can try to guess how to blur efficiently when rescaling from youtube to DVD, but it will be a poor quality. Just think on it, you have lost 81% of surface area.
From youtube's tiny screen source you cannot rebuild a DVD with an acceptable quality for most humans.

It is just a simple "technical" quote, I don't want to interrupt your conversation about artists' rights and the new information era, discusion that I am following with attention for all arguments.

Regards, Drizzt

Hello Drizzt,

I am new here and I see this is quite an active thread. Drizzt, I beg to differ from your view but this is not a fiction. You are laughing but it is possible to improve the quality but I will not explain how this can be done in this forum because I don't want to put ideas into the people's heads. Maybe it is good that you think this way because this means that you could not spread illegal information. It just means that you are ignorant (not insulting you) to what the procedures would be. People keep saying that it is always possible to rip a song off a cd because when people really want it they will find a way. The same goes for a pirate. If he really wants it he knows the way. It takes little work to recreate a master copy of the original. FYI, I am not a pirate but it was explained to me how it could be done.

Silver

quote:

Originally posted by Liberté:
A good album truly is more than the sum of its parts, and if people only listen to one song from each, they are missing out. That is why I continue to buy CDs as opposed to digital downloads.

I have noticed a common misconception with buying digital downloads on this forum, illustrated by Liberte's comment here. Downloading an album off of iTunes, Amazon, Rhapsody, what have you, does not have to be a one song trick. I have downloaded entire albums happily for 10 dollars off of iTunes for an artist I don't particularly feel the burning desire to own a hard copy of their CD, especially for the 2 to 6 dollars more it costs to buy in a free-standing store. I've also handpicked the few songs off of an artist's album I'm not quite sure about on iTunes. It goes either way. I think everyone is in agreement here that most people will and have bought Loreena's hard copy albums because it's important to all of us to have that physical album to view and enjoy, but I feel that this is an exception rather than the rule. I understand as a visual person that liner notes and hard copy CD cases may hold a visual appeal to some people more than others, but there are advantages to having digital files, in that you don't have to dust them off!

As far as putting things up on YouTube or other places in the name of giving Loreena all the publicity she "needs", why can't you just point them to the QR website? It doesn't make any sense to go to some grainy video online when a cleaner, clearer version exists here on the website.

Is Loreena going to weigh in again, or is she waiting for this discussion to reach 20 pages?

Angie

quote:

On a final note, I’d be interested to learn about your thoughts on the current state of the music industry. Do you think music should be free? Do you prefer to get your music online or from a music store?
LM

Hi Loreena and everyone else here,

No, music should not be free, no one wants to work for free, and music is already a bargain, you pay for a CD or download once and listen as often as you want to, whenever you want to.

I still prefer to get my music at a store, and like a lot of other people here I enjoy the art and liner notes that come with a CD. The MP3 player I purchased almost two years ago still doesn't have anything on it.

Mona

quote:

Originally posted by Loreena:
SHIFTING MUSIC INDUSTRY PRESENTS NEW CHALLENGES

More and more I think of the Bob Dylan song, “The Times They Are A-Changin’.” Well it seems no business or industry is inured from this fact of life and particularly so the music industry.

Quinlan Road began, as many of you know, at my kitchen tabletop and busking on the street. Beyond being a passion, it was inevitable it would become a business. Quinlan Road was built on people hearing the music and then choosing to stay in touch by joining the Quinlan Road Community.

As the music industry continues to evolve, we want to be sure that we don’t lose you in the flotsam and jetsam of the changing times. More than ever, we want to stay close to you, to narrow the distance between ourselves and you and hopefully by doing this we’ll be able to serve you better in a variety of ways. We are hopeful the best way for us all to stay connected is through the Quinlan Road Community – and that you’re enjoying what we have to offer.

As you know, there’s no cost to join and being a member gives you access to front-of-the-line tickets to concerts, participation in online chats, quarterly newsletters, breaking news updates and access to exclusive contests and special offers.

We thank you for your membership and your continued interest in the music and ask that if you know anyone who’s a keen supporter and would benefit from membership, please encourage them to join too.

On a final note, I’d be interested to learn about your thoughts on the current state of the music industry. Do you think music should be free? Do you prefer to get your music online or from a music store? To discuss these and other issues, please visit our message board and share your views.

LM

Dear Loreena McKennitt and the visitors of this Forum,

I express here my thanks for your music and lyrics you create. They are inspiring and for me they give senses to the world.
I appreciate to share my thoughts with you, Ms McKennitt and the visitors of this Forum.
I hope this writting will add something to all that is already “said” on this Forum. And you’ll all understand the intention, because English it is not my native language and I don’t possess a translation program on my computer.

As main point for answering the question “Must music be free or available in a shop” I use a selective part of history and I am conscious of it. It might be my mythe and I give it a try.
Starting with “The Neolithic”(4900BC) with very large steps onwards to “The Enlightment”(17the centuary) and “The Postmodernism”(21the centuary)
How come? The changes in time, what those meant for man kind of the past and what they means now a days is the content of my work as an artist.

In “The Neolithic” the basis of the social arrangement shifts from hunter-forager to food producer with possessions out of this branche.
Thinking in terms of social revolte and individual self growth this time can be compared with The Postmodernism in which the pressure lies on gathering possession and display it.
In time we become besides producers, big consumers. We are taking room, physically as a fat body and literally with our goods.
Since “The Enlightment” we are more free and independant. In our era we are also more indifferent than ever.
The consumption machinery pulls us not only economically in one direction but also psychologically with consequences for the future.

Generally spoken we are still given less attention to ecology (the balance between man kind and nature) and behaves ourselves on looking after the planet as short-sighted and I-sighted.
Downloads for free, the chance to have more and more, cost more energy of our planet.
I think we must use our in the past gained freedoms of “The Enlightment” and give a chance to a deeper form of given sense. For instant in our behaviour, on personal level. Giving sense in our behavior could be, to take the responsibility for the choices we can make in our wealthy and free part of the world. To choose in dialogue and solidarity according to nature and human beings. For a start in connection with our own environment and on a larger scale with the world.
Don’t we have the mission as an human being to preserve what we have now? I think the time is right to hold this “banner”.
We are able to transform our modernity and produce and consume with responsibility according to the above mentioned choices and by thinking of preserving what we have. Developments are already there.

The question “music should be free or availible in a shop” is not answered by considering what I wrote here, but to think about this question, it could be a beginning of how we participate in the world of nature and human beings and wheather we have the interest to perserve it. My advisor is not fear. I still believe that man kind and nature have the strenght to give a change in the direction of preserving.We share the past and our future is now.

With many kind regards to you and the readers of this Forum,

Sia Schipper
the Netherlands.

quote:

Originally posted by Shan-Lyn:
As already mentioned, it's not hard to dowload videos from YouTube, Google, MySpace, etc.
Despite the quality (for some viewers) being 'poor', the 'pirate' can easily take the downloaded video and improve it to a better quality.

Due to the limitations of the video compression, this is unlikely to be true. As for piracy (and this is a matter of semantics), illegally profiting from someone else's work is criminal and I am personally against it, but it is still not theft. It is criminal copyright infringement.

Theft is something completely different. The danger of calling these criminal acts "theft" is that it leads easily into using the moniker "intellectual property", which is deceptive because patents, copyright, trademarks, and trade secrets are not covered by Property Law at all, nor are they all covered by any other single law.

Getting back to the purpose of record albums, I think it is particularly frustrating that most radio stations simply play the "hit single" of a certain album (although I admit that the first time I heard Loreena, it was from the Mummer's Dance single on the radio). A good album truly is more than the sum of its parts, and if people only listen to one song from each, they are missing out. That is why I continue to buy CDs as opposed to digital downloads.

quote:

Originally posted by Shan-Lyn:
[...]
As already mentioned, it's not hard to dowload videos from YouTube, Google, MySpace, etc.
Despite the quality (for some viewers) being 'poor', the 'pirate' can easily take the downloaded video and improve it to a better quality.
[...]
Shan-Lyn

LOL, Youtube/Google/any video/audio in a lossy format CANNOT be improved to a better quality. The information lost from the original source (DVD/Bluray/HDTV) is lost forever. Once you have a video/audio file in AVI/MP3 etc you cannot obtain the original DVD/CD from it. Pieces of information have been erased, they are lost, and from a lossy source you cannot try to take them back.

Applied to the video problem, you can convert a youtube video from his tiny source (320x240 I think it is) to a DVD resolution (720x576) but the image just get blured, you cannot rebuild the lost pixels like in a CSI chapter. That fiction isn't true. The computer software can try to guess how to blur efficiently when rescaling from youtube to DVD, but it will be a poor quality. Just think on it, you have lost 81% of surface area.
From youtube's tiny screen source you cannot rebuild a DVD with an acceptable quality for most humans.

It is just a simple "technical" quote, I don't want to interrupt your conversation about artists' rights and the new information era, discusion that I am following with attention for all arguments.

Regards, Drizzt

quote:

Originally posted by dlaws99:
I know. Radio was the outlet, and stations don't have to play anybody. Stations get bombarded with promo copies and they throw 90% of them in the dumpster. Now there's the internet and the boundaries need to be clarified. Outstanding about your iTunes deal. Best of luck with that.
I used to hang out at this great Irish B&G in Lakewood in the early 80's. Probably not the place you worked.

No I worked on the east side in Willoughby. I have an friend who may have worked there as an Irish singer, don't know for sure....

Yes, I'm really excited about my music being iTunes...I don't know what they did to my music, but it sounds great to me...they fixed up my album artwork a little... I couldn't be happier, I just goto iTunes, do a search for djwayne, and there I am !!!!! Loreena has some of her music there too. So that's really cool !!!!!!

Very relevant topic in not only the music industry but to intellectual property in general. Here's my view. It is only that and based on my values and beliefs. You are entitled to your view as I am to mine.

When I purchase music it is my understanding that I have license to listen to it until my ears fall off, as often as I like, so long as I don't charge money or get compensated for it. While a strict interpretation of the license might also mean that I cannot play the music when others are present I don't believe that is the intent. My son (who is an avid fan himself at 14) loves it when I play Loreena's music at home. His listening, and even that of my guests who come into my home at my invitation, are, I believe, covered under the license so long as I am not seeking compensation using the music as a tool. This is most often how I introduce others to Loreena's music as I have a fairly nice home system that really brings out the great performances by her and the band.

Here's where it's likely to become more controversial... Copies. If I purchase a CD of the music can I make copies? I follow the same rule I do with software; Make a copy for daily use and keep the original for backup purposes. That is the only reason I see that is valid for making duplicate of the CD media. Not to give away, sell, or otherwise distribute in any way. I would not even make copies of the CD's except that my teenage daughters would "borrow" one from the CD library and return it scratched beyond usability because it was left on a desk (or floor) media-side down and then "forgotten" until I asked for it back. I believe that I should be able to play my CD in any of my CD players at my discretion and, within the bounds of being a good neighbor, at any time and volume appropriate to do so.

Now to more volatile media; mp3, wav, .flac, .midi, etc., If you pay a legitimate distributor (such as QR) for a work they are authorized by the creator to sell then the same rules should apply. By all means, make a backup for the event when your computer crashes, your iPod falls in the tub, your... you get the idea. But never distribute, even for free, anyone's work but your own.

Let's go a bit further and then I'll be done. Because the license is for the use of the IP, be it a performance or a written work, then I believe you should be free to use the work for yourself without other limitation. In other words, rip the CD to mp3 so you can carry the lighter, more battery efficient, iPod or mp3 player rather than the CD player and a whole library of CD's on a backpacking trip or the evening run/bike/walk/hike/etc. Again, so long as it's not distributed for free or otherwise.

I believe written material, be it a novel or any other written work, should be handled the same way. Unless explicitly authorized to do so, there should be no re-distribution of the work. If it is on a website and is copyrighted should be no different than a bound book or whitepaper. several Baen authors have put some of their older works on CD as iBooks and HTML with the express purpose of using them as samples to encourage sales of their newer books. according to David Weber, one of the authors, this has worked. The CD specifically says you may copy and re-distribute the work so long as you don't change anything and don't charge anything. Some of the books are even offered in electronic form on Baen's website as free downloads. I think that this was a well thought out implementation of using the web and newer media to leverage promotion of the work, the author's had to agree and the publisher as well, to give up the works as free in electronic form. They still sell hardcopy and many of the books are in 2nd or 3rd, or even more printings. the point being that it needs to be thought out by the owners of the IP and then implemented effectively.

I am against controls on authoring of media for two very important reasons: First is practical, it's unenforceable at this point. Second and more important from my viewpoint; whop the heck gives them the right to say they have exclusive use of a media? If I want to record my kid's attempts on the clarinet or baritone sax, his current instruments, and put them on CD for my family, Sony, as a private company, or the RIAA as a private industry group should have no say in the matter whatsoever. And I cannot bring myself to trust their "goodwill" on the topic as it would be a conflict of interest for them as they are first and foremost established to make money for their clients.

I think QR is doing a great job in bringing the electronic formats to paid download, especially the lossless and Hi-Fi formats. The license is for the music in whatever form. The differences in cost of the forms should reflect demand and the costs of producing them. I would much rather support the artist as directly as possible than the vast overhead of a large company that just creates inefficiency.

My $0.02 and my very best wishes for success,

Don

Please don't get me wrong. Simple downloading and playing for friends is one thing. Making duplicate copies for sale is outright piracy and should never be allowed.

quote:

Originally posted by Loreena:
SHIFTING MUSIC INDUSTRY PRESENTS NEW CHALLENGES

<snip>

LM

I would like to bring up 'Stacey's Post' again, dated April 15, 2008, where Ian Blackaby explains the nitty gritty. I wish everyone would read it one more time, because he has explained this quite to the point.

Here is the link:
Stacey's Post w/ Ian Blackaby's Explanation

With such a thorough explanation, the problem now rests for Loreena (as well as many other musicians/copyright holders), to understand how to better protect their music in an obvious Digital world that has gone out of control.

There are ways.

Kind regards,
Shan-Lyn

I know. Radio was the outlet, and stations don't have to play anybody. Stations get bombarded with promo copies and they throw 90% of them in the dumpster. Now there's the internet and the boundaries need to be clarified. Outstanding about your iTunes deal. Best of luck with that.
I used to hang out at this great Irish B&G in Lakewood in the early 80's. Probably not the place you worked.

quote:

Originally posted by djwayne:
Of course she has ownership. Give it away ?? Absolutely not. In fact I expect cd and dvd prices to go up, due to production costs. You want publicity though. Music has been recorded off the radio for decades. It's part of how hits become hits, word of mouth advertising, people playing music they like for their friends. It's all connected.

I just got some great news about my music, as of today, it is now posted for sale at iTunes, this wasn't supposed to happen until June 11th, but they posted it early !! I'm thrilled !!

quote:

Originally posted by dlaws99:
I hear what you're saying, but the reason we're discussing all this is to find where the boundaries are. Would you agree Loreena has SOME level of intellectual ownership of her compositions? Should she just give her next record away? What then is the point of copyright law if not to protect that property. Just because a song is released to the radio stations, does that mean it's now fair game for any and all reproduction for whatever reason?

Of course she has ownership. Give it away ?? Absolutely not. In fact I expect cd and dvd prices to go up, due to production costs. You want publicity though. Music has been recorded off the radio for decades. It's part of how hits become hits, word of mouth advertising, people playing music they like for their friends. It's all connected.

I just got some great news about my music, as of today, it is now posted for sale at iTunes, this wasn't supposed to happen until June 11th, but they posted it early !! I'm thrilled !!

quote:

Originally posted by Liberté:
Shan-Lyn,

It is not "pure and simple theft." Firstly, because Canada's Copyright act does not contain a single mention of the word "theft". Theft implies that you get something by depriving someone else of it. That does not describe what is going on here at all.

quote:

Originally posted by Shan-Lyn:
Why would people bother buying her music when they have it all anyway due to the YouTube or Google videos?

The videos on Youtube and Google video are poor quality. People watch the video on youtube to see if they like the music. If they do, they buy the album. If Youtube quality is good enough for them, they wouldn't have bought the album anyway.

I would also like to point out that a recent study from the Government of Canada found that "our analysis of the Canadian P2P file-sharing subpopulation suggests that there is a strong positive relationship between P2P file-sharing and CD purchasing. That is, among Canadians actually engaged in it, P2P file-sharing increases CD purchasing. " (emphasis mine)

Liberté -

I should have explained myself more in depth.

There's a sweeping problem of "depriving one of their rightful earnings from which they've created a copyrighted work of art".... and in that deprivation of receiving their rightful monies is what is called 'theft'.

When the tide shifts in the direction of people starting to believe that it's alright to take someone else's work, not for the enjoyment of viewing or listening to it, but to capitalize on it, then - indeed - 'the times are a changin' .

As already mentioned, it's not hard to dowload videos from YouTube, Google, MySpace, etc.
Despite the quality (for some viewers) being 'poor', the 'pirate' can easily take the downloaded video and improve it to a better quality. And it doesn't take much genius. You'd be surprised how very innovative people can become when they are desperate for money. Money is a universal language.

As well, it's not hard for people to buy the Alhambra DVD (eg.) , play it on their favourite Video player, strip it from the DVD and make multiple copies. STOMP, (which one can purchase anywhere in a computer store), is a nice label-maker that one can slap onto any DVD - after they've decorated the label with a picture and wordings of their own (in this case it would be a duplicate of Loreena's DVD picture and the very wording on it.

It's also not hard to buy some nice DVD casings, etc., that are void of all the extraneous company markings.

Steps to Piracy

1. Create a duplicate DVD video, with good enough quality;
2. Burn it onto your DVD disc;
3. Slap the label on it;
4. Put it into a nice little DVD casing (or if you're really desperate, just get a cardboard or paper sleeve);
5. Seal it with a tape.

It is now ready for marketing. And the artist who created their artistic work, is being robbed of rightful monies because someone else - the pirate - is capitalizing on their work. Yes, it is theft.

Plain and simple, but not pure.

Kind regards,
Shan-Lyn

I hear what you're saying, but the reason we're discussing all this is to find where the boundaries are. Would you agree Loreena has SOME level of intellectual ownership of her compositions? Should she just give her next record away? What then is the point of copyright law if not to protect that property. Just because a song is released to the radio stations, does that mean it's now fair game for any and all reproduction for whatever reason?

[/QUOTE]

I did that conversion when Loreena won the SOCAN award fo 100,000 air plays of The Mummers' Dance...

Congratulations Loreena on the SOCAN award. 100,000 air plays is quite a lot. Here's how much. Since Mummers' Dance is 6:07 long, that translates to 367 seconds times 100,000 is 36,700,000 seconds or 611666.66 minutes or 10,194.4 hours or 424.77 days or 1.164 years. So, 100,000 air plays is the same as hearing it continuously for 1 year and about 2 months. Of course, I've already played it about 92,000 times at my house alone...[/QUOTE]

Yes and all those plays on the radio, multiply by 1000's of listeners who listened to that song for free.....and you guys are sqwakin' about a few free downloads ??