Canada may legalize music filesharing--for $5 a month

[Tasaio]

Please note: I'm deliberately posting this in World Affairs rather than Technology.

It's more about the "global issue" of filesharing than the technology of filesharing itself.

From TheStar.com | entertainment | Could $5 a month save the music industry?

SAC is calling for the creation of the Right to Equitable Remuneration for Music File Sharing, which would make it legal to share music on peer-to-peer networks in exchange for the monthly fee. The fee – amounting to an estimated $500 million to $900 million annually in Canada – would be administered by a collective of artists, songwriters, music publishers and record labels. "Monetizing peer-to-peer file-sharing would generate significant new revenue for creators and the music industry," says acting SAC president Eddie Schwartz, "and re-establish revenue levels (for songwriters) that we haven't seen since 2000-2001."

I think this is an excellent idea. The market is changing--best to take advantage of the change and try to monetize now.

Of course, there are some obstacles:

Internet Service Providers may resist adding $5 to customers' monthly bills.

Not too big of a worry. If it gets them out of being held accountable for filesharing, I'm sure they'll agree.

The four major record labels, which have traditionally dominated music distribution, oppose all attempts to establish alternatives or competitors.

Come on. These are the people who arrest 14-year-olds for downloading music.

What the record labels don't realize, is that convenience will always win out. Why go the store and buy a CD, when you can download the album in seconds?

I say, tough luck if the RIAA and CRIA lose out. When you enter a business, there's always the risk your product will become obsolete.

The federal government, which will have to be convinced of the merit of the changes in the Copyright Act, is reluctant to intervene in the marketplace unless in the public interest.

Harper may bridle at "socialist schemes", as he calls them, but I think he's smart enough to realize that the method of distribution is changing. The idea of making money will probably excite him, too.

I think it's clear that the current US method of stopping piracy is too ineffective. The gov't should learn from the US' mistakes.

Songwriters and authors will have to give up their long-established right to approve or disapprove of the use and means of dissemination of their work. The only right they will have is the right to be paid for peer-to-peer downloads.

I don't think this is valid simply because it happens already. It's rampant on youtube. People don't complain anymore, because it's just more publicity.

Anyway, practically, it only makes sense. You're allowed to quote any written work, provided you give credit--why shouldn't it work the same way for music?

Internet users who do not download music – paid or otherwise – will balk at paying an extra $5 a month.

I don't download music, paid or otherwise, and I'll willingly pay an extra measly (gasp!) $5 a month.

People will complain about anything. Just let them rant, and eventually they'll get used to it.

[Brutha]

Please note: I'm deliberately posting this in World Affairs rather than Technology.

It's more about the "global issue" of filesharing than the technology of filesharing itself.

I think this forum is the right one for the topic.

Is this a good solution for illegal filesharing?

It's no solution to illegal filesharing because it only is about a some files.

I don't know what the word music means. Where is the line between music and other audio's?
Is a holosync CD music? Is a CD with only nature sounds music? Is an audiobook music?
That are different legal questions, that the person sharing the stuff probably is unable to answer.

Who should the person who downloads the stuff know what's legal in that regard and what isn't?
It seems that only the mainstream stuff with isn't that valuable cultural anyway profits from the $5.

The fee – amounting to an estimated $500 million to $900 million annually in Canada – would be administered by a collective of artists, songwriters, music publishers and record labels.

I think that such a collective should make it's decisions on a democratic legimated basis with a lot of indepence.

A bit like for example BBC is set up in the UK but the organisation wouldn't produce anything itself but give the money out to artists.

Harper may bridle at "socialist schemes", as he calls them, but I think he's smart enough to realize that the method of distribution is changing.

It is socialistic. That doesn't mean that it's bad but I think that label fits.
It's about replacing a free market based system by one where a committee decides which music will get funded.
The problem is that the free market solution is also problematic.

[JimOfferman]

Originally Posted by Tasaio

I think this is an excellent idea.

I think the idea is outrageously stupid! It is the government stepping in to take control of a market that is well on it's way to adapting to the new digital world. That may benefit the old guard of labels and artists who are either unwilling or unable to transform their businesses - but it comes at the expense of a newer generation who are, in fact, making good money right now and stand to make more in the future.

In addition, I have released my music under a creative commons license, meaning that I say it is FREE and LEGAL to trade my songs over the internet (for non-commercial purposes). And now suddenly the (Canadian) government is going to step in and tell you it ain't so! No way!

The market is changing--best to take advantage of the change and try to monetize now.

Yes, the market is changing. Interest in music is rising, the costs of distribution are falling and the market is becoming more open, because it is getting easier for independent artists (like me) to build a profitable business thanks to the internet.

Please don't let the government screw that up!

What the record labels don't realize, is that convenience will always win out. Why go the store and buy a CD, when you can download the album in seconds?

There are many reasons why people still buy CDs, mostly because people like to own a physical product. I should add that people still buy CDs in large quantities, just that the numbers are a bit less than what the industry was used to.

But downloads are on the rise because, yes, they are convenient. That's why the iTunes Store sold a couple of billion tracks already and that's why competing MP3 stores are popping up left and right. These stores work because they offer a better product and better services than the illegal P2P circuit.

Plenty of people get that there is money to be made even in a market where (illegal) file sharing is admittedly rampant.

When you enter a business, there's always the risk your product will become obsolete.

Absolutely! And at that point, you can expect from a business to do what any sensible business in that situation: adapt or die.

But music is far from obsolete.

The idea of making money will probably excite him, too.

The government deciding how much money he can make will probably not appeal him. Nor does it appeal me!

I think it's clear that the current US method of stopping piracy is too ineffective. The gov't should learn from the US' mistakes.

The US method of fighting piracy is, basically, treating all consumers like criminals when, for a long time, the industry failed to deliver the product that the consumer so desperately wanted - namely, unrestricted (as in no DRM) and easy access to music.

In my humble opinion, the RIAA would do well to stop wasting money on litigation targeted at consumers and, instead, spend those dollars on extending and promoting legal download stores. Again, the iTunes Store and its brethren prove that consumers, at large, will pay for music.

It's rampant on youtube. People don't complain anymore, because it's just more publicity.

People don't complain anymore, because they have figured out how to make money of those rampant youtube videos.

Anyway, practically, it only makes sense. You're allowed to quote any written work, provided you give credit--why shouldn't it work the same way for music?

You are allowed to quote music, just not entire works - it's exactly like written works, in that respect.

I don't download music, paid or otherwise, and I'll willingly pay an extra measly (gasp!) $5 a month.

Why? And what's next? $5 a month for the movie actors who earn less royalties "because" their movies are pirated? And then another $5 a month for the stage play writers, because they must be affected in some way too... a $5 a month levy for building constructors because they are now building less luxury villas for those artists, who don't really need to work anymore because the government is subsidizing their downloads... where does it end?

I'm ferociously against any kind of levy. There's some political pressure here to add levies on harddisks and MP3 players, because people might use those to store music or other media that they didn't buy. If that comes through, the next time I buy an iPod, I would have to pay an extra $50-$100, just for the privilege to store music on it that I have already bought! And don't even get my started on the levy on blank CDs/DVDs, which a government organization has been collecting for years, but they are paying the artists nothing because they cannot figure out how to fairly divide the money!

The music market is doing just fine as it is. Let it fend for itself!

[Trezker]

I don't know if all the world has this but in Sweden we pay extra for all writeable media. Whenever you buy anything from old audio tapes to hard drives you're paying for mainstream music even if you never listen to such artists.

I think it's outrageous. How can any sane country have such laws? It's incredibly stupid. Also, since these fees are supposed to cover for the speculative losses supposedly caused by pirating shouldn't we then be allowed to pirate? We're paying for the music already when we buy the media we store our pirated songs on.

But no! The recording industry still hunts down private persons that downloaded a few songs. So what the heck is that fee for then? The ones who want something for nothing is the industry, not the pirates.

For you who released your music for free with the creative commons licence or however you chose. Doesn't it bother you that when you burn your own music or people download your music you and everyone who likes your free music are paying Madonna, Avril Lavigne and other big artists money in order to do it?

[JimOfferman]

Originally Posted by Trezker

I don't know if all the world has this but in Sweden we pay extra for all writeable media.

Those are the levies I was talking about. Many, but not all, European countries have them. Germany is a notable exception, which is why it is illegal for a Dutch businesses to buy writable media in Germany, even though the European Union is supposed to be an open market.

For you who released your music for free with the creative commons licence or however you chose.

Just to clarify: a creative commons license doesn't imply that the music is free.

Doesn't it bother you that when you burn your own music or people download your music you and everyone who likes your free music are paying Madonna, Avril Lavigne and other big artists money in order to do it?

I, personally, would be less bothered if they actually paid artists, but they don't. At least not over here. Again, the Dutch organization responsible for distributing the levies to the artists has yet to decide on how to do that fairly. I think Belgium has the same problem.

But I agree with you completely: the less levies, the better! None would be perfect...

[Jennihul]

Levies would be stupid. Voluntary fees would be fine. If you aren't paying your voluntary fee to subsidize your music downloading and you are caught with it, you go to jail.

But I pay taxes for schools and I don't have kids. To support senior citizens and I am not one. To help the poor but I have money. I pay taxes for roads I never travel and services I don't use, so that particular argument is kind of moot.

A better plan would be for the recording companies to take their thumbs out of their a$$es and try moving to the new millennium with the rest of us instead of criminalizing what has always been: People sharing experiences with each other.

Jennifer

[JimOfferman]

Originally Posted by Jennihul

Levies would be stupid. Voluntary fees would be fine. If you aren't paying your voluntary fee to subsidize your music downloading and you are caught with it, you go to jail.

A voluntary fee wouldn't be any better than a compulsory levy. That would still mean handing over control of the market to the government. You still end up with a situation where you're only downloading Madonna and end up supporting Michael Jackson (because there is no way to fair and squarely divide those fees amongst artists).

We do have a voluntary fee that does work, though. It's called buying CDs or MP3s. It's 100% fair (all the people involved in getting the CD or MP3 into your hands will get a piece of the pie) and it's been working for a long, long time now.

Let's just keep things plain and simple!

[Jennihul]

Originally Posted by JimOfferman

A voluntary fee wouldn't be any better than a compulsory levy. That would still mean handing over control of the market to the government. You still end up with a situation where you're only downloading Madonna and end up supporting Michael Jackson (because there is no way to fair and squarely divide those fees amongst artists).

We do have a voluntary fee that does work, though. It's called buying CDs or MP3s. It's 100% fair (all the people involved in getting the CD or MP3 into your hands will get a piece of the pie) and it's been working for a long, long time now.

Let's just keep things plain and simple!

I agree, basically. But that's not to say I didn't have a heyday on Napster before they made it a hanging crime.

Like we cannot "uninvent" the atomic bomb, we can't univent the ease with which digital media can be shared. In fact, the ease with which digital data and media can be shared IS the future. How to pay for it seems to be such a big beef but only because panicky record and movie producers are clinging fearfully to the "olden days." Hoping it will all go away or, unrealistically, that people will all develop a conscience suddenly. People that rape, murder and loot. As if. As well as people that cheat on their taxes. People that beat their kids. As well as people that don't.

Seems to me, paying for it is the simplest and lamest aspect. But sharing albums in the 1970's was just as easy with a tape deck. In the 1950's with a reel-to-reel. Taping the radio. Why was this no big deal? Because the volume of copying and sharing was no where near as possible with those methods. So buds sharing stuff was never an issue.

So what the problem is...is massive sharing and true pirating. These sites are easy to find. These pirates are easy to catch. Just like drug dealers and their minions, the minor players, like the guys standing at massive tables on the streets in Singapore, always lead to the big players.

Like nuclear weapons, there is no way to eliminate the issue. It has just been piled onto the hill of crimes we can potentially commit. Law enforcement takes over.

So why is it so difficult to have legal sites with fees paid and music shared? Cut off the ones who don't? It's not. Why do they concentrate on the futile task of trying to make it impossible to copy? As if the same people that write those programs aren't also writing the keys to unlock them? Because the record and movie people are stupid and short sighted. Desperate instead of smart.

They will get smart in time. So because they can't get their crap together, our governments feel like they need to step in like a grownup in a kindergarten slap fight. Sad.

I say screw music and movies for a year. Everyone. Blow it off in such a massive boycott they change or die.

Jennifer

[JimOfferman]

Originally Posted by Jennihul

I say screw music and movies for a year. Everyone. Blow it off in such a massive boycott they change or die.

I hope you don't mean all music! There are quite a few artists who do get it... just look at me for example!

In all fairness, the music business is catching on, with all major labels now offering DRM-free music in one way or another. It's a shame that not everyone is on board yet (talking to you, RIAA), but they'll all catch on eventually.

[Jennihul]

They got their overall general wish: Massive exposure = more money.

They just forgot to be specific in their manifestations.

The massive exposure happened. It's definitely generating more money. Just not for them. Karma. What goes around comes around. Maybe they shouldn't have screwed so many artists.

Jennifer

[Mayo]

Originally Posted by JimOfferman

In addition, I have released my music under a creative commons license, meaning that I say it is FREE and LEGAL to trade my songs over the internet (for non-commercial purposes). And now suddenly the (Canadian) government is going to step in and tell you it ain't so! No way!

With CC you just won't be collecting royalties from your music. I think it's great from you to do it the CC way but in the future you could even get some check in the mail if you produce some music and license it with some of your local music artist association. I don't know what are most folks b#tching about, it' not porn you will be paying for it's the music and everyone is listening music!

My question is: do you take American and Canadians that you are so poor that you can not pay 5$ a month for ALL music you and your family can listen and all that LEGALLY???

There still stands the question about movie rights, but that is another beast and there should be different rules applied for that but eventually every ISP will offer you "all that you can watch you watch for just XX$ a month", of course there should be option on Pay per View but that should be an option.

Don't know if some of you or all have flat-rate(with real no limit) broadband internet connection but you should have felt the difference of what is it when you have a cap of X or XX Gigabytes of traffic vs having unlimited amount of traffic, the difference is just staggering!

[JimOfferman]

Originally Posted by Mayo

With CC you just won't be collecting royalties from your music.

Not true. I will be collecting royalties when my music is played on the radio, synced with a movie or sold by another shop. My music is not free, the CC license I employ (it's called BY-NC in short) just makes it legal to share my music with your friends and make non-commercial "remixes" (this includes anything from doing a drum 'n bass version of one of my song to making a fan video for it).

I think it's great from you to do it the CC way but in the future you could even get some check in the mail if you produce some music and license it with some of your local music artist association.

Again, the way I've licensed my music doesn't exclude this.

I don't know what are most folks b#tching about, it' not porn you will be paying for it's the music and everyone is listening music!

Not everyone listens to music. hard to believe maybe, but it is true.

My question is: do you take American and Canadians that you are so poor that you can not pay 5$ a month for ALL music you and your family can listen and all that LEGALLY???

No, quite frankly, I think that people do and will pay more than that to support the artists they really like (rather than supporting all artists, even the ones they hate). I -as an artist- want people to pay willingly for my music, rather than have the government charge people blanket fees which then may or may not be distributed fairly amongst myself and other artists.

There still stands the question about movie rights, but that is another beast and there should be different rules applied for that but eventually every ISP will offer you "all that you can watch you watch for just XX$ a month", of course there should be option on Pay per View but that should be an option.

I'd have no objection to ISPs offering all-you-can-eat subscriptions for movies or even music - presuming that consumers are free to choose whether they want to use (and pay for) those services or not. Also, I would presume that I would get to decide whether or not I want those ISPs to include my music in their service...

[Mayo]

Originally Posted by JimOfferman

No, quite frankly, I think that people do and will pay more than that to support the artists they really like (rather than supporting all artists, even the ones they hate). I -as an artist- want people to pay willingly for my music, rather than have the government charge people blanket fees which then may or may not be distributed fairly amongst myself and other artists.

“Much of the stated concern over file sharing has centered on the revenue that record companies and musicians are losing, but few musicians ever actually receive royalties from their record sales on major labels, which managers say have accounting practices that are badly in need of review. (Artists do not receive royalties for a CD until the record company has earned back the money it has spent on them.)

Even the Backstreet Boys, one of the best-selling acts of the 1990’s, did not appear to have received any CD royalties, their management said.”

File-Sharing Battle Leaves Musicians Caught in Middle

[JimOfferman]

Originally Posted by Mayo

“Much of the stated concern over file sharing has centered on the revenue that record companies and musicians are losing, but few musicians ever actually receive royalties from their record sales on major labels, which managers say have accounting practices that are badly in need of review. (Artists do not receive royalties for a CD until the record company has earned back the money it has spent on them.)

Even the Backstreet Boys, one of the best-selling acts of the 1990’s, did not appear to have received any CD royalties, their management said.”

File-Sharing Battle Leaves Musicians Caught in Middle

This is a five year old opinion piece, which makes it all but irrelevant to the present day situation, but... Yes, the tactics employed by the RIAA are less than admirable and it is true, apparently, that many artists who signed up with the major record labels receive next to nothing from CD or MP3 sales (although that doesn't necessarily mean they aren't being lavishly compensated in other ways).

Canada's proposal is not an answer to the problem. It does not change the deals that those artists have with their labels - so all the 'royalties' will still go to the label, not the artist. It also takes a blind eye to the great many smaller labels and independent artists who are all making decent money on the internet.

[Bruce Achterberg]

There's already a free p2p music option available called Qtrax:

Qtrax is the world’s first free and legal peer-to-peer (P2P) digital music site. Music lovers can discover new music and legally download full-length, high-quality versions of their favorite songs while compensating both the artists and the record labels through non-intrusive and relevant advertising. Qtrax has the unparalleled support of the major record labels and all of their respective publishing divisions. LTDnetwork Inc, a division of Brilliant Technologies Corporation, developed Qtrax and its components.

Qtrax

I believe it works by collecting demographic/music listening info from those who download the music, but I can't remember all the details.

Honestly, this should have happened long ago. Most media these days is an utter scam, price-wise. Part of the reason people pirate media so much is because it's a better option, not just because it's free, but because there are a variety of formats and the user is given choice. The user doesn't have to wrestle with silly things like DRM or copy protection and can even try media before they buy.

My prediction is that the media industry will eventually move towards a model where they focus on the user instead of the bottom line, simply because the users are the ones who pay for this stuff, and they're the ones who'll win and have the most influence in the end. Either adapt to them, or get left behind. Accommodation is rarely a bad thing.

[JimOfferman]

Originally Posted by Bruce Achterberg

There's already a free p2p music option available called Qtrax

Unfortunately, Qtrax isn't quite ready for launch yet, because of this: Qtrax's free, legal P2P scheme is vaporware for now

Late last night the LA Times called around to confirm the deal and found that only Universal would say that it was close to a deal. EMI and Warner denied a deal was in place, and Peter Kafka says that Sony BMG has also denied that there was a deal in place. In short, no labels have signed on yet.

Licensing deals aside, it sounds like a great concept...

[Mayo]

Free! Why $0.00 Is the Future of Business

BTW Tasaio thanks for this very interesting link you put up here!

[Barcs]

So basically the $5 a month thing will be just like Napster is right now. A few of my friends subscribe to Napster and it seems to be pretty convenient. I still get em for free though.

One great thing about music sharing is that it allows you sample music before you buy it. So if an artist puts out a garbage CD, people won't buy it. I completely disagree that it hurts the music industry. The only thing hurting the music industry is artists that put out one hit (catchy chorus) song and then expect everyone to blindly buy their CD, when most of it is atrocious. File sharing allows you to preview it before you buy it. If I download music and it is apparent that the artist put good effort into it and actually cares about more than money, then I will buy it. If not, I delete it. Simple as that. I don't see anything wrong with that at all.

Another great thing about music file sharing is that it helps smaller independent artists gain exposure. This is huge, because it used to be that the only artists you hear about are the ones chosen by the mainstream radio stations. If they were marketed well, they were successful. Bottom line. There is SO much good music out there, and the majority of it, IMO, is not played on the radio, except on local indy stations.

Most people that download music for free, most likely wouldn't buy it anyway or cannot afford the near $20 price tag. This is what urks me about when people say that the music industry is losing money from it. They might be, but that's only because the artists are sub par and most people are learning this before they buy the CD.

[Tasaio]

Originally Posted by Barcs

So basically the $5 a month thing will be just like Napster is right now. A few of my friends subscribe to Napster and it seems to be pretty convenient. I still get em for free though.

One great thing about music sharing is that it allows you sample music before you buy it. So if an artist puts out a garbage CD, people won't buy it. I completely disagree that it hurts the music industry. The only thing hurting the music industry is artists that put out one hit (catchy chorus) song and then expect everyone to blindly buy their CD, when most of it is atrocious. File sharing allows you to preview it before you buy it. If I download music and it is apparent that the artist put good effort into it and actually cares about more than money, then I will buy it. If not, I delete it. Simple as that. I don't see anything wrong with that at all.

Another great thing about music file sharing is that it helps smaller independent artists gain exposure. This is huge, because it used to be that the only artists you hear about are the ones chosen by the mainstream radio stations. If they were marketed well, they were successful. Bottom line. There is SO much good music out there, and the majority of it, IMO, is not played on the radio, except on local indy stations.

Most people that download music for free, most likely wouldn't buy it anyway or cannot afford the near $20 price tag. This is what urks me about when people say that the music industry is losing money from it. They might be, but that's only because the artists are sub par and most people are learning this before they buy the CD.

QFT.

There seems to be some misunderstanding in this thread.

Music filesharing is not illegal in Canada. It was decriminalized in 2003. And we, too, pay taxes on blank media (blank CDs, blank DVDs, etc.).

The Conservatives have already attemped to ban filesharing (along with gay marriage). They failed in both cases.

This $5/month idea is an alternative to the proposed copyright reform bill (basically a mirror of the DCMA).

Among other things, this bill:

- Makes it illegal to rip MP3s from a CD you legally own. (???)
- Makes it illegal to copy ripped MP3s to an ipod. You'd have to buy a separate copy via iTunes.

I'm not sure how they plan to enforce those last two points. (Hasn't the UK decided to decriminalize music ripping in the future?)

Predictably, the bill was withdrawn after a public outcry. Additionally, Google and other major businesses signed a business coalition against the bill.

It bears mentioning that teachers, libraries, and universities also opposed the bill.

Now, I think a DCMA-style bill would change nothing. The RCMP have already stated that they are unwilling to go after filesharers, calling it "impractical". And ISPs have made it clear that they have no intention of going after filesharers; I mean, they provide them with their source of income.

. . .

It does bear mentioning that Prof. Michael Geist, the man widely seen as Canada's expert on copyright, also opposes a $5 levie:

From Michael Geist - Blog

# There are always competing policy priorities. Given the importance of broadband access for commerce, communication, culture, and education, I think that any proposal must not unduly undermine the policy goal of universal access. I think that a $5 monthly increase would represent a sufficiently significant price increase such that it might drive some away from broadband.
# The SAC proposal only addresses music. I expect that others - video, software, and cultural groups - will also demand their piece of the pie. In fact, that's already happening with the proposal for ISPs to contribute 2.5 percent of profits for creating Canadian new media content. I think that any proposal must comprehensively deal with P2P and this one does not.
# The $5 monthly fee strikes me as absurdly high given the revenues of the music industry. Music continues to generate significant revenues and this additional billion in revenue bears little relation to any possible revenue decreases that might be attributed to P2P (which is itself debatable).
# I am not convinced that this model requires government intervention at this time. These are still early days and there is the possibility that the market could adopt this model - either by a voluntary consumer fee or a negotiated ISP license for its customers - without legislative intervention.
# There are some doubts whether the proposal is consistent with Canada's international copyright obligations.
# There are some doubts about the fairness of the distribution of a levy.

[Tasaio]

One thing I forgot to mention:

People forget that we pay for things we never use through taxes, anyway.

I pay for tech. support in by broadband bill, and I never use it.

There are certain fees you can't opt out of when paying university tuition. Do I really want to pay for on-campus online use when I never use it there?

The answer is, I don't care. People get used to these fees.

...

By the way...

Conservative Party Accused of Copyright Infringement

ROFL!

[JimOfferman]

Originally Posted by Tasaio

I pay for tech. support in by broadband bill, and I never use it.

That's different. You could opt to change to another provider that charges tech support on a per use basis, instead of having free tech support incorporated in their monthly fees.

(Assuming, of course, that there is such a provider)

The answer is, I don't care. People get used to these fees.

That would be the worst reason for introducing this levy! Let's just add a monthly $10 indifference fee while we're at it... the money won't be used for anything, but people don't care so why not?

I hope they all listen to Michael Geist, 'cause he makes some pretty good points!

[Mayo]

Just bought Nine Inch Nails 4 CD pack for $10 and there is even cheaper $5 digital-only option. The best thing it has Creative Commons licensing!

If most artists take Radiohead & Reznors approach i would not care if i get charged $5 on my dsl line or if i buy directly from artist website like NIN has made possible.

The best thing Trent Reznor said last time he had agreement with publishing company "Steal,steal,steal!" because their CD was sold at 30$.