The latest statistics were promoted by the IFPI and a copy of the claims were published on the CBC. In these statistics as selected by the copyright industry itself suggests that physical music sales – namely CDs and vinyl sales – fell by 15%. Meanwhile, digital music sales grew by 24%.

The copyright industry, for years, have been claiming continually that Canada’s digital music marketplace is out of date and weak. The blame has seemingly been placed on Canada’s copyright laws – hinting that without copyright laws, innovation would practically cease to exist in Canada. To date, the evidence that was put forth has fallen short on anything other than wild guessing as demonstrated by the statistics the last time the Canadian DMCA was introduced. So, if the claims are true this time around, comparing Canada’s music sales against the worlds music sales should back that up, right? After all, the copyright industry has been publishing these numbers themselves. It seems as though that is not the case.

According to statistics published by Nielson Soundscan and posted on in Michael Geist’s blog in January, physical music sales fell by 8.5% in both Canada and the United States. Not bad considering the global number was a fall of 15%. As for digital music sales, digital music sales in Canada grew by 69% – a number that makes the global music growth of 24% look very modest. Given that the continual claims by the copyright industry include that Canada is lagging behind all the other countries in terms of a digital market place, these statistics appear to say otherwise. It seems more likely that, at the absolute minimum, Canada is pushing the digital music sales growth higher and pushing the global physical sales loss to a smaller number more than half of the countries in the world.

So, on quick glance of the copyright industries own statistics, it seems that the claim that Canada is falling behind the other countries in the world has taken another credibility hit.

There’s been no shortage of dramatic events happening surrounding ThePirateBay trial, but one supporter of ThePirateBay took it upon themselves to hack the IFPI website. According to a Swedish blog (Google translation), a group known as the New Generation demanded that the IFPI prosecutors stop lying.

Apparently, it’s support like this that ThePirateBay didn’t want.

In his blog, Brokep denounced the attacks saying, “If anyone involved in the acts going on is reading this – please stop, for our sake. We don’t need that kind of support.“

He added, “I hope it’s over now and that we can go back to winning our case without taking these measures. The hacking can only reflect on us badly and if you want to help us, please stop with the attacks.“

There is some additional coverage on TheLocal which contains the following:

But Pirate Bay spokesman Peter Sunde, one of the four men on trial for being an accessory to copyright infringement, was quick to distance the file sharing site from the attack on IFPI’s homepage.

“It was a really stupid thing to do. It just gives us a bad image, especially when we’re in the process of winning this case,” he told news agency TT.

Lars Gustafsson, managing director of IFPI, said his organization was accustomed to online attacks any time it took steps to curtail illegal file sharing.

“The odd thing about this internet mob that promotes freedom of speech and freedom of information is that it only seems to apply to them,” he told TT.

Currently, there are rumours that suggest that the hacking of the IFPI website may have been initiated by the IFPI or an organization closely associated with the IFPI.

The disturbing report comes right out of todays posting on EDRI.org, a European Digital rights activism website.

The amendments just about speak for themselves and can be found here. Here’s a few of them:

“Article 2 – point 5 a (new) amending Directive 2002/58/EC Article 14 – paragraph 1

1. In implementing the provisions of this Directive, Member States shall ensure, subject to paragraphs 2 and 3, that no mandatory requirements for specific technical features, including, without limitation, for the purpose of detecting, intercepting or preventing infringement of intellectual property rights by users, are imposed on terminal or other electronic communication equipment which could impede the placing of equipment on the market and the free circulation of such equipment in and between Member States.”

Paragraph 1 and 2:

2. Where provisions of this Directive can be implemented only by
requiring specific technical features in electronic communications
networks, Member States shall inform the Commission in accordance
with the procedure provided for by Directive 98/34/EC of the European
Parliament and of the Council of 22 June 1998 laying down a procedure
for the provision of information in the field of technical standards
and regulations and of rules on information society services(9).

3. Where required, measures may be adopted to ensure that terminal
equipment is constructed in a way that is compatible with the right
of users to protect and control the use of their personal data, in
accordance with Directive 1999/5/EC and Council Decision 87/95/EEC of
22 December 1986 on standardisation in the field of information
technology and communications(10).

Here’s another amendment:

Article 1 – point 12 xx amending Directive 2002/22/EC Article 21 – paragraph 4a (new)

Members state shall ensure that national regulatory authorities oblige the undertakings referred in paragraph 4 to distribute public interest information to existing and new subscribers when appropriate. Such information shall be produced by the relevant public authorities in a standardised format and may inter alia cover the following topics :

(a) illegal uses of electronic communications services, particularly where it may prejudice respect for the rights and freedoms of others, including infringement of copyright and related rights ;

(b) the most common illegal uses of electronic communications services, including copyright infrigement, and their consequences; and

(c) means of protection against risks to personal security, privacy and personal data in using electronic communications services.

Significant additional costs incurred by an undertaking in complying with these obligations shall be reinbursed by the national regulatory authority.

So basically, they are demanding mandatory notice-and-takedown systems run by the ISP and paid for by the government. It would definitely make the job of the copyright industry a lot easier to have state sponsored copyright police run by the ISP.

One has to wonder how ISPs are suppose to “[prevent] infringement of intellectual property rights by users” outside of an outright ban on file-sharing entirely given that encryption and restricted access p2p (ala private P2P websites) has become increasingly adopted by the file-sharing community at large. What about blocking YouTube? Would that be considered a preventative measure?

The amendments go even further with this:

Without prejudice to national rules in conformity with community law promoting cultural and media policy objectives, such as cultural and linguistic diversity and media pluralism, national regulatory authorities and other relevant authorities shall also as far as appropriate promote cooperation between undertakings providing electronic communications networks and/or services and the sectors interested in the protection and promotion of lawful content in electronic communication networks and services. These co-operation mechanisms may also include coordination of the public interest information to be made available as set out in Article 21(4a) and Article 20(2).

How can kowtowing a dying business model be more obvious in legislation with “the protection and promotion of lawful content in electronic communication networks and services”?

La Quadrature du Net, the website that has a large amount of information on the matter has some ways of stopping these amendments from becoming European law:

Contact your MEPs and their assistants before July 7th, the date of the vote in IMCO and ITRE committee, to inform them that the “Telecoms Package” amendements are dangerous for users’ freedom and harmful to network neutrality

Ask them to drop or reject the amendments related to Intellectual Property Rights, which are completly unrelated to the Telecoms Package. All the MEPs need to be contacted to prepare themselves to vote against the rapporteurs and draftspersons proposals on September, if such amendements are voted on July 7th.

European citizens have until the 7th to contact their MEPs (Member of European Parliament) and voice their concerns.

From EDRI:

Some amendments will transform the ISPs from technical intermediaries that have no obligation to prior surveillance of contents into law enforcers. Therefore they might be asked to block their users from lawful activities in the interests of their security or to work with content producers and rights-holders’ organizations, including sending intimidating messages, with no judicial approval. The amendment meant to support Intellectual Property Rights owners could open the door to censorship and might mean in practice the loss on privacy on the Internet.

“The politicians who engage in these summer manoeuvres dishonour Europe and their mandate. They rely on the fact that nobody watches them few days before Parliamentary holiday, to divert the Telecom package from its primary objectives of consumer protection. They pave the way for the monitoring and filtering of the Internet by private companies, exceptional courts and Orwellian technical measures. It is inconceivable for freedom but also for European economic development. We call on all MEPs to oppose what they have already rejected.” said Christophe Espern, co-founder of La Quadrature du Net (Squaring the Net).

The appeal of the three organisations comes just before the 7 July vote in the ITRE and IMCO Committees of the European Parliament on the suggested amendments to the telecom package. The plenary discussion and vote for the whole package will take place in September, but the vote in the two committees could have a significant impact on the final result.

Protests over the new “telecom package” have already taken place in Germany.

Open Rights Group is also covering the story:

Could Europe be drafting a new law to disconnect suspected filesharers from the internet? MEPs have already signalled their condemnation of this approach. But last-minute amendments to telecommunications legislation could bring the so-called “3 strikes” approach in by the backdoor. If you want your MEP to stick to their guns on 3 strikes, write to them today to voice your concerns.

Back in February, we reported that the UK Government was considering a law to ban illicit filesharers from the ‘net. A promised consultation on proposed legislation is yet to materialise (although we’re still hoping it will appear before the Summer recess). Meanwhile, pressure on ISPs and rightsholders to come to a voluntary arrangement has had some effect, with both Virgin and BT recently starting to “educate” those customers they believe are infringing copyright in their use of p2p networks.

As we pointed out at the time, neither the voluntary nor the statutory approach will put a penny in artists’ pockets unless accompanied by viable legal alternatives that deliver consumers what they want. A recent survey commissioned by British Music Rights [pdf] indicates that 80% of those currently downloading music would pay for so-called “legal p2p” – properly licensed and competitive filesharing alternatives. Rumours that industry is close to developing such an offer are yet to be confirmed. But without it, any enforcement move is likely only to drive illicit filesharing further underground.

Over in France, President Nicolas Sarkozy (who also took over the European presidency yesterday) has put his weight behind legislation proposed by the Olivennes report. The bill, which has been delayed until the Autumn, will mandate termination of internet connections. It goes without saying that it is the subject of much controversy across the Channel.

Wiki for La Quadrature du Net (features pages in both English and French)

Home page for Quadrature du Net

In the last couple of months, copyright term extension in Britain seems to have become a dormant topic. The last major movement in this field came back in early March where a British MP objected to Copyright Term Extension legislation. Now, the Open Rights Group is reporting that top legal advisers are saying that, among other things, “The proposed Copyright Extension Directive will damage European creative endeavour and innovation beyond repair.”

Said Gavin from the Open Rights Group, this comes at a time with “the confusion and disillusionment of Ireland’s rejection of the Lisbon Treaty still ringing in the Commissions ears”

The letter (PDF) to José Manuel Barroso, president of the European Commission contains the following:

According to press reports, a draft directive extending the term of copyright for sound recordings by 45 years to 95 years is about to be adopted by the Commission (”before the summer break of 2008″). This Copyright Extension Directive, proposed by Commissioner Mccreevy, is likely to damage seriously the reputation of the Commission. It is a spectacular kowtow to one single special interest group: the multinational recording industry (Universal, Sony/BMG, Warner and EMI) hiding behind the rhetoric of “aging performing artists”.

The Commission is required to conduct an impact study for each directive it proposes. We, the leading European centres for intellectual property policy research, have collectively reviewed the empirical evidence. Our findings are unanimous. The proposed Copyright Extension Directive will damage European creative endeavour and innovation beyond repair.

That’s got to leave a mark. The impact assessment doesn’t seem to touch on the subject lightly either (PDF). FRom the impact assessment:

From the point of view of the Internal Market, the term of protection for phonogram producers does not cause particular concern since the term has been harmonised in the Community and also been incorporated by the 10 new Member States. (…) Moreover, it seems that public opinion and political realities in the EU are such as not to support an extension in the term of protection. Some would even argue that the term should be reduced. At this stage, therefore, time does not appear to be ripe for a change, and developments in the market should be further monitored and studied.”5 It is indeed hard to see how extending exclusive rights to the catalogue of recorded music for another 45 years would benefit society. Following years of fierce and sustained lobbying by the trade bodies of the record industry, however, the copyright unit of the Internal Market Directorate is currently drafting the text of the extension directive which the European Commission aims to adopt as a formal proposal to the European Council and the European Parliament “before the summer break of 2008”. It is still possible for the Commission to see sense, in particular the commissioners who speak on competition (Neelie Kroes), consumer protection (Meglena Kuneva), enterprise and industry (Günter Verheugen), the information society (Viviane Reding), and science and research (Janez Potočnik).

In order to assist rational policy making, leading research institutes called a meeting at Bournemouth University in May 2008. Collectively, we have reviewed the empirical evidence on the issue of term extension.

The impact assessment suggests the following:

• We have seen no evidence that living artists as a whole would benefit decisively from an extension of exclusive rights held by record companies. The benefits will fall to those who need it least: already wealthy performers, and their estates and record companies.
• An exclusive term of protection of 50 years should be more than sufficient to cover the investment horizon of record producers. Any retrospective protection is in effect a windfall that will negatively affect access to, and exploitation of the back catalogues of recorded music.
• While the empirical evidence is missing, it is simply preposterous to claim both, that term extension does not make any difference to consumer prices, and that record companies need term extension to boost their revenues.
• the effects of term reduction should be as thoroughly investigated as the proposed extension.

With this fresh blow to the copyright term extension in Britain, it’s unlikely that the issues will go away any time soon so long as there is a push to extend it.

Open Rights Group is reporting on this recent move, but is currently unable to identify the MP who objected to the reading of the bill. The only thing available is a streaming video which showed what happened. His face is visible at 4:56:57. He is sitting on the far left side of the screen sitting in the front row.

As it stands, the bill is currently going into its second reading. The delay means that the bill will go into its second reading next Friday.

The Open Rights Group says that the delay was the result of the people who wrote to their MP to tell them to not allow the copyright term extension to go through. They are currently requesting all those that have an interest in the copyright extension debate to write to their MP and tell them what the people think about it. They also are asking for European citizens to sign a petition to stop Copyright Term Extension European-wide.

This crackdown on copyright infringement was an attempt to deter file-sharers, making it seem as though one couldn’t get away with it in Germany. A new report on Heise Online seems to show a significant setback on the file-sharing crackdown – namely the new resistance to using data retention laws in civil matters.

The Justice Minister of Germany Zypries said in an interview for Focus Magazine, “Connection information can assist in the prosecution of terrorists and organized criminals but cannot be used to help the music industry pursue its rights under civil law” Ouch. Not good news for the IFPI when they were jumping for joy earlier over the new laws. A Google translation of an earlier report showed a chairman of the German arm of the IFPI saying that it would be contradictory for the government to not hand over all the information over to them for copyright legal pursuits.

The data retention laws would have all internet service providers retain all the information that goes through their networks for six months starting on January of this year. It’s little wonder why the record labels would want to have access to that information.

It may not be too far fetched to believe that the German record labels will simply give up after being told ‘no’, but for now, it looks as though the record labels will have to go back to their old tactics which is probably similar to some of the questionable information gathering techniques employed by their US counterparts.

What makes this so odd is that on average we’re talking about people shelling out $2 bucks for a 10 second clip of what they could normally purchase in it’s entirety for half the price. That’s 3% of the real product at 200% the price. What’s even more ironic is that $6 billion USD of the total ringtone sales were spent on those crappy mono and polyphonic style ringtones that make even karaoke machines cringe.

The International Federation of the Phonographic Industry (IFPI) reported that worldwide music industry sales were about $20 billion in 2006, down from $21 billion in 2005. Their RIAA counterpart blamed uncooperative governments, unethical college students, 10-year old kids, a paralyzed man, and in the case of all cases, even the deceased. They pretty much blamed everyone and everything twice over for a failed strategy that’s been maddeningly obvious to everyone else but them for years now.

Some of have pointed out how the biggest wrinkle in their argument blaming file-sharing as the main reason for their declining music sales is the fact that people are no longer forced into buying a $20 dollar USD CD anymore. In the “old” days you had two choices, buy an overpriced album in its entirety or physically find a friend who already had to make a copy. For years they profited on the backs of poor college students who the RIAA had enough gall recently to refer to as “its best customers.” It’s like Big Tobacco or something patting you on the back like an old friend while you secretly know that its just your customer loyalty that it cares about.

Now you can’t blame a business group for being concerned about profits, capitalism does run the show but, at what point does somebody stand up at one of their catered meetings and say “Hey, uh, Mr. CEO guy, more people hate us than George Bush. I think we’re going about things the wrong way.” I mean seriously, if people actually pause to choose who they despise more — George Bush or the RIAA — you have got some major problems.

Again, what’s lost in the RIAA’s argument is how music sales haven’t decline, THE ALBUM has. As Ars Technica furthered:

The easy availability of digital music makes it possible for music fans to cherry-pick their favorite songs. In high school, I bought Abacab (yes, I’m old) in LP form by Genesis primarily because of the title track and “Dodo/Lurker.” 26 years later, I would have just snagged those two tracks from the iTunes Store.

He’s right, I mean who does buy a whole album anymore? Everyone I know grabs the actual few tracks that are actually good on album instead of buying the whole album.

I would argue that DIGITAL MUSIC SALES in and of itself are the real reason for an overall decline in total music sales.

But, what’s odd, that seems strangely removed from the argument is the profits made from ringtones sales. Gartner research claims $9 billion USD in worldwide ringtone sales while the IFPI claims about $1 billion USD. Even if you take a leap of faith and say Gartner’s claims must be false and say 50% of the figure is accurate, that’s more than enough BILLIONS to cover the supposed $1 billion USD they lost last year. Furthermore, they’re making cash on what is truly an inferior product to say the least.

Do they leave it out because they’re really talking about declining album sales, the fabled fancy $20 dollar store-bought commodity of old? Or is it because they consider ringtone sales to be some sort of non-music product that shouldn’t be fully accounted for? When we’re talking about a 10 second clip I could actually buy this argument but, a sale is a sale and all profits must be accounted for as they always like to point out.

I still can’t understand why people wouldn’t just buy the real deal instead of an overpriced ringtone clip and either edit or convert it. I know some aren’t “technophiles,” if that’s what understanding a simple conversion or audio editing program means but, honestly, after you buy one or two ringtones isn’t it worth the effort?

Irregardless, the fact that they are making increasing profits from ringtone sales ought to make them at least quit the whole “declining sales” bit and accept that it’s merely a “declining business model” to blame for their woes.

Better yet, they ought to realize they were the ones who helped to usher in the digital music era a long time ago when they threw physical CD stores under the bus in deals with Wal-Mart and other discount stores to sell them at a loss to lure customers.

digg_url = ‘http://digg.com/music/Why_doesn_t_the_RIAA_talk_about_the_9_billion_USD_in_ringtone_sales’;

Looking for more stuff to watch or download?
‘Curb Illegal Downloading on College Campuses Act of 2007′
RIAA “explains” its crackdown on student file-sharing
3 Quick Ways to Watch Movies for FREE!
3 quick ways to watch TV shows for FREE
BitTorrent torrent sites & search engines
Azureus – A Beginner’s Guide to BitTorrent Downloading
uTorrent – A Beginner’s guide to BitTorrent downloading

SOULXTC: “walkin’ the streets of P2P”

The report begins with: “Legitimate online services have struggled in the face of outdated copyright laws and the resulting widespread digital piracy.”

While the question of whether Canada’s online services have struggled is open to debate, attributing the cause copyright laws is plainly wrong. There are a wide range of factors – later start in the market, fewer providers, smaller selection, and less interest in e-commerce are all undoubtedly additional factors. So too is the private copying levy which may be viewed by some as legitimate competitor given that more than $150 million has been collected for artists and the industry.

“Canada has yet to fulfill its longstanding commitment to ratify the 1996 WIPO Treaties to protect digital copyright.”

Read the 2006 PIRACY REPORT

In a statement to the media, Yahoo China majority owner Alibaba.com characterized itself as a “general portal that provides an online search engine service to Chinese internet users,” while disclaiming any infringement charges. “The IFPI mischaracterized Yahoo China as an MP3 link site,” the statement continued.

Just last week, the IFPI filed the lawsuit against Yahoo China, pointing specifically to its MP3 search engine.

The IFPI could benefit from a recently instituted Chinese law, which would hold Yahoo liable “if it knows or should know that the work, performance or sound or video recording linked to was infringing.”