We are the walrus. Or, thank you Lily Allen
p2pnet news view Music | Freedom | P2P:- “I am he as you are he as you are me and we are all together.”
That’s from The Beatles’ 1967 song I Am The Walrus. The attribution is to both Paul McCartney and John Lennon, but the words are Lennon’s and for me, they sum up what the net is all about.
Peers to peers. People 2 people. Sharing. Caring.
P2P.
Now there’s a chance for two critical masses — those who make songs and those who enjoy them — to meet online. And if they do, it could start a massive chain reaction uniting musicians with fans and fans with musicians, to everyone’s mutual benefit.
And should it Come Together, to use another Lennon title, UK singer Lily Allen will have been the unwitting catalyst.
We are the Walrus
Music is meant to be passed around and enjoyed, not owned exclusively by a small band of venal corporate pirates epitomised by Vivendi Universal (France), Sony (Japan), EMI (Britain), and Warner Music (US, but controlled by a Canadian).
That isn’t to say it should be free as in free beer, but it should at least be affordable and within easy reach of everyone.
And yet, it isn’t — not corporate ‘product,’ anyway.
Singly and together, in one way or another, the Big 4 control the music industry.
They say sharing is exactly the same as stealing, and they’re using his specious and indefensible claim as the visible element in their efforts to gain total control of the Internet so they, and they alone, can use it as their exclusive product marketing, sales and distribution vehicle.
I Am the Walrus is more than 40 years old and by any reasonable standard, it should by now have entered the public domain for free use by anyone.
But if you or I dare to share it online, and if any of the Big Music ‘trade’ organisation such as the RIAA in America, or the BPI in Britain, are alerted and somehow find out where we live, we could wind up on the wrong end of a Big 4 anti-file sharing subpoena.
Screwed, blue and tattoooed
On Friday I ran a post slugged Billy Bragg solves the file sharing problem. It was based on his September 30 editorial in The Guardian called A better way to sink internet pirates.
I followed it up yesterday with Billy Bragg to p2pnet and over the course of the two posts, something happened I don’t believe has happened before since the file sharing controversy was launched by the labels in 2003.
Then, working for Vivendi Universal, EMI, Warner Music, Sony Music, their RIAA started the bizarre sue ‘em all marketing campaign under which the people who kept the labels in business are called criminals and thieves and are ‘persuaded’ to continue consuming ‘product’ under constant threat of being financially ruined in the law courts if they don’t.
My original post was less than complimentary to Billy Bragg. But he responded in a series of comments addressing individual points raised by p2pnet readers.
And I believe his explanations and observations not only clarified what’s going on in the minds of some, at least, independent and contracted artists in a way never seen before, but by virtue of the fact he bothered to post at all, he also gave us access to musicians who until this point have been locked off.
The three-strike sanction
UK singer LilyAllen’s widely publicised attack dissing P2P file sharing started it all.
“France is once again trying desperately to do the bidding of the corporate entertainment cartels by implementing a law which would see ‘illegal’ downloaders thrown off the net without proof of wrong-doing, as it’s defined by Vivendi Universal, EMI, Warner Music and Sony Music, on the one hand, and Time-Warner, Fox, Disney, Columbia, Paramount and MGM on the other,” I said a few days back, going on:
“And that’s the way to go, implies Lily Allen, a UK singer whom nobody outside of the UK had heard of until she started shouting the odds about file sharing.
“Elton John also jumped on the bandwagon, but the wheels had started turning when Britain’s The Times, a prestigious newspaper until it was snapped up by Rupert Murdoch, ran a whiny Allen OpEd which, by an amazing coincidence, had previously appeared in Allen’s MySpace thingy, MySpace also being a Murdoch possession.”
Lily’s tirade was quickly disseminated by the lamescream media and this, in turn, led to a hurriedly convened meeting by the Featured Artists Coalition, of which Billy is a member.
FAC members wrapped it up in a statement in which they »»»
overwhelmingly … support a three-strike sanction on those who persistently download illegal files, sanctions to consist of a warning letter, a stronger warning letter and a final sanction of the restriction of the infringer’s bandwidth to a level which would render file-sharing of media files impractical while leaving basic email and web access functional.
‘There’s no technical solution …’
But, “I accept that FAC need to deliver a better message that clearly states where we stand on file-sharing, but you have to understand that the vast majority of artists are still wedded to the record industry view of downloading as a threat,” says Billy Bragg in a p2pnet Reader’s Write, going on »»»
There were over 60 artists in the room last week when we were discussing how to respond to the industry’s demand that the govt pass laws to suspend internet connections, only a dozen from the FAC. Despite evidence that technical sanctions will not work from several IT experts that we invited, the majority was clearly in favour of some kind of sanction. In order to try to stop disconnection, we opted for bandwidth squeezing as a compromise between all of our positions. Our task now is to convince our colleagues that there is no technical solution, but this will take time.
Until we can get a critical mass of artists to understand that the record industry doesn’t always act in our best interests and that we need to take the initiative on the issue of copyright and access, we have to keep engaged in discussion and education. Check our website – we have an education event for fellow artists on Monday night.
Billy is in the US until Wednesday, but if he can manage it, we’d like him to get a message to his friends and colleagues »»»
We love music, we love what you do, and we’ve been wanting to talk with you for long time.
We, too, believe you should be recompensed for your creations. But we don’t want to be screwed, blue and tattoooed by the labels in the process.
And we think we’ve figured out a way to do it
A2F2A
“Billy, I’d like to chat with you about an idea I have,” I said yesterday, and we ended up having an interesting telephone conversation in which we both agreed if we – that’s to say artists and fans — bypass the Big 4-inspired bullshit and talk to each other without their interference and continuing efforts to keep as apart, we’ll all be better off.
The p2pnet discussion between readers and Billy show how it can work and he and I decided we’d try and make it happen again, and as an ongoing process, via a webpage.
On it, music makers and music lovers could talk to each other about common difficulties, and find a way to resolve them, at the same time creating a showcase where artists could upload samples of their music for everyone to listen to —-
—- freely and without fear.
When I was telling my daughter Emma, who’s 13 and never goes anywhere without her MP3 player and headphones, about the idea, I asked her if she had any suggestions about what the site could be called.
Artists2Fans2Artists, she said immediately.
A2F2A.
What do you think? Another idea?
Meanwhile, as part of his current tour, on November 23 Billy will be in Victoria on Vancouver Island, BC.
That’s not far from where I live and while he’s here, we’ve agreed to meet to discuss the possibilities, and how to keep the ball rolling, in a lot more detail
For now, for anyone who doesn’t know about Billy, here he is in a nutshell from the Wikipedia.
“Stephen William Bragg (born 20 December 1957 in Barking, Essex, England), better known as Billy Bragg, is an English alternative rock musician who blends elements of folk music, punk rock and protest songs. His lyrics mostly deal with political or romantic themes. His music career has lasted more than 30 years, and he has collaborated with Natalie Merchant, Johnny Marr, Kate Nash, Leon Rosselson, members of R.E.M., Michelle Shocked, Less Than Jake, Kitty Daisy & Lewis, Kirsty MacColl, and Wilco. Bragg often plays and speaks at the Tolpuddle Martyrs festival. Bragg Close, a street in Dagenham, Greater London, is named in his honour.He now lives in Dorset.”
And below, to give you a taste, are two GooTube Billy Bragg videos.
And check out »»»
- ‘Just some stuff to think about, Billy’
- Billy Bragg to p2pnet …
- Yeh, Billy Bragg, but what about the indies?
- Billy Bragg solves the file sharing problem
- Walruses and sock puppets
Stay tuned.
Cheers! And thanks. And stay in tune …
Jon Newton – p2pnet
And
First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win ~ Mahatma Gandhi
October, 2009
Use free p2pnet newsfeeds for your site. It’s really easy!
Subscribe to p2pnet.net | | rss feed: http://p2pnet.net/p2p.rss | | Mobile – http://p2pnet.net/index-wml.php
Net access blocked by government restrictions? Use Psiphon from the Citizen Lab at the University of Toronto. Go here for details.
|
|
 |
|
 |
| Archives | |
|
|
|
|
|
 |
| Add real-time p2pnet headlines to YOUR site ! Click here to download our newsfeed code |
Lily Allen disses P2P file sharing
October 4th, 2009 at 3:36 pm
It would be a good idea to put some of the comments together into a story.
October 4th, 2009 at 3:51 pm
@ Paulus
That’s the plan. But I want to see if anything interesting comes from this post so I can include it.
Cheers!
October 4th, 2009 at 4:00 pm
this looks at least hopeful as a real start to something beneficial, including shutting down the Kartels.
a couple of interesting things i found on BB’s website:
the message board has a section where people can trade bootlegs of BB’s music.
these are the rules:
“This forum is to share links and information relating to ‘unofficial’ amateur recordings, or bootlegs, of Billy Bragg’s live performances. These can be swapped/traded among enthusiasts, but there must be no financial transaction.”
the second thing i saw is in his blog. a lot of wha’s in there he posted to p2pnet, but here are a few samples:
“The major labels seem to see the internet as a threat, not just in their self-defeating attempts to criminalise our fans for sharing our music with others, but also in their determination to cling to the old way of doing things. Under the old business model, they took the lion’s share of the profits for doing the heavy-lifting of physical production and distribution of stock. Shamefully, some labels are still offering deals to new artists based on this notion. We live in a digital age but we’re stuck in an analogue music industry. As long as artists allow the major labels to speak for the industry as a whole, this situation will not change.”
“We (the FAC) believe that the best way to ensure that we properly benefit from the new technology is for artists to assert their ownership and control of their rights.”
“The FAC is a campaigning organisation that seeks to achieve fair remuneration in exchange for widespread access. Our target is not the music fan but the businesses that are making huge profits by exploiting artistic content for which they pay little or nothing at all.”
the ball is rolling.
thanks for stopping by, Billy.
October 4th, 2009 at 4:08 pm
instead of A2F2A, what’s wrong with F2A2F – Fans2Artists2Fans?
well jon, you asked for other ideas.
October 4th, 2009 at 4:48 pm
Well, somehow I am NOT surprised that the “industry” is trying to keep the artists away from the fans.
Obviously, if the 2 ends (artists & fans) that are getting screwed by the middle (industry) were to
compare notes, then the jig is up and the labels are damn sure to fall on their collective faces!!
So, thanks Billy, for coming here to open a dialog with us! If you are a true example of how the artists
feel about the labels, we (you and us) now have a real chance to affect change in the digital age!
I’m not sure I want the industry dead, (flame me if you want) but if they will not change then that
end is inevitable!
Long live P2P and long live music!!
October 4th, 2009 at 5:00 pm
Great to see reasonable conversations starting to take place. Not just name calling and mud flinging. I will definitely frequent a site like a2f2a.
October 4th, 2009 at 5:25 pm
Artists are people
Fans are people
A publishing corporation is a type of legal entity
So how about ‘p2pnet’ for People to People, Not Entity Types?
October 4th, 2009 at 7:17 pm
“Artists are people
Fans are people
A publishing corporation is a type of legal entity
So how about ‘p2pnet’ for People to People, Not Entity Types?”
Crosbie: I LOVE that!
October 4th, 2009 at 7:28 pm
” Great to see reasonable conversations starting to take place. ”
Will wait on celebrating till it happens.
I fully expect it to sound like pre-written label propoganda.
No trust ?
No reason to.
Those that are trying to tie up the internet are masters of ‘reality control’, and
this is likely to end up more of the same.
October 4th, 2009 at 7:28 pm
billy, i’ve been reading through the FAC website and i am very impressed.
although i understand that the recent “agreement” was signed by you and others under some duress, i think it’s fair to say that we understand it is the labels that pressured you to “say something”, and that you do not condone cutting off internet access.
i do hope you’ll change your mind about “throttling”.
i’m very relieved to know the FAC genuinely wants to keep free p2p alive, and that it’s the ones who charge money for memberships, etc. that they want to get rid of.
regular p2pers also find this practice despicable. these so-called private sites – who often disappear with thousands of bucks – are the ones who have given p2p a bad rap.
something i read at FAC also impressed me, and i hope many people here will read the website, too.
“However, we seriously question the wisdom of seeking to deal with this problem by terminating the internet connections of individual music fans. We are not referring to websites that reap commercial benefit from file-sharing: seeking to make money from giving our songs away. We want the industry and Government to come down on those thieving rascals with all the weight of the law.
The focus of our objection is the proposed treatment of ordinary music fans who download a few tracks so as to check out our material before they buy. For those of us who don’t get played on the radio or mentioned in the music media – artists established and emerging – peer-to-peer recommendation is an important form of promotion.
The industry recognises the value of this unpaid-for-promotion and regularly uses free downloads as a marketing tool: for example, there are hundreds of free tracks available on the NME website, including music from Speech Debelle, White Lies, Little Boots and many others. By demanding blanket suspension powers from the Government, the industry is in danger of cutting-off a promotional tool that is of great use to fledgling artists who seek to create a buzz around themselves yet don’t have the financial support of a major label.”
i read in one of your comment postings here that (i believe) you’d be in favor of a “pay [donate to] the artist directly” button when tracks or albums are torrented – bypassing the labels and other middlemen altogether.
i think that’s a great idea and i can see it working on several free p2p torrent listing sites that already do what they can to promote creators.
that’s something i would certainly do – pay the artist directly when they share their work. paypal would work very well, and i’d use it.
i’m sure you get the idea now that p2pers are for the artists and indies, not the majors who will probably never release control willingly. and i hope you can convince the FAC’s other members who don’t see eye-to-eye with you on free p2p.
October 4th, 2009 at 8:18 pm
@ Dredd:
I have no doubt Bragg is for real. Now it’s time to put something together.
Cheers!
October 5th, 2009 at 12:08 am
20 years ago my friends and I went to 7 or 8 of Billy’s shows over a number of years
the best part was his between songs banter , usually political, always human condition kind of topics
changed they way i saw things back then
as a side note i was reacquainted with Billy’s music through filesharing and have since bought numerous discs
memories !!!!
October 5th, 2009 at 12:34 am
Last week I became a big fan of Lily Allen — after she said that she would leave the music business for good (and spare us any further agony!)
Well, the ink was barely even dry on that proclamation when it became clear that she had no intention of keeping her promise, and indeed planned to carry on with her career, full steam ahead.
Ok, so maybe we shouldn’t call her a liar. Maybe she operates under the notion that when a writer deletes her own blog, everything that she said is henceforth to be completely forgotten, as if it never happened. Down the Memory Hole.
http://www.usmagazine.com/moviestvmusic/news/lily-allen-definitely-not-retiring-from-music-2009259
October 5th, 2009 at 1:32 am
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eKcnw0neCYI&feature=fvw
October 5th, 2009 at 1:32 am
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eKcnw0neCYI&feature=fvw
agreed!
October 5th, 2009 at 7:31 am
Here’s the choice that Billy Bragg and others in FAC face.
There are two perspectives that one can take with regard to the business of music recordings. Either the artist and production engineers are paid to make a studio recording and that’s the end of their interest in the matter – they have their money, the customer has their recording, OR the artist is a budding monopolist (their own record label) and will begrudge anyone who makes a further copy of their published recording who didn’t pay for it.
It comes down to whether you believe in copyright or not. Are you in the business of performing and recording music, or are you in the business of selling copies and broadcast privileges?
Do you believe that recording artists should be content that they have been amply paid for their studio recording, or would you go further and say that you will not rest until everyone who makes and sells or gives away an unauthorised copy (or performance thereof) is properly punished, and a severe deterrent is thus in place for anyone who even thinks of joining them?
It’s the difference between the equitable exchange of work for money, and the jealous guarding of a lucrative state granted monopoly.
The record labels are the ones in the business of selling copies and broadcast privileges. It is they who pay session musicians and studio engineers for their work, and they who say that should be the end of the matter. It is the labels who are in the business of selling copies and enforcing their monopolies, now to a draconian degree.
I suggest FAC should represent the artists who no longer wish the labels to pretend to represent them. FAC should comprise those artists who are indeed satisfied if they are amply paid for their studio recordings, AND that copyright is neutralised on those recordings such that the audience is then free to share and build upon them, without fear of prosecution or demands for royalty. FAC should comprise those artists in the business of performing and recording music. It should not comprise artists interested in getting into the business of selling copies and broadcast privileges (that business is ending).
FAC’s customer is their audience, their fans. FAC’s customer is not one or more record labels.
Sell your live and studio performances, and the recordings thereof.
That’s as far as you can go.
You can’t sell copies of those performances or recordings without a monopoly that suspends the liberty of your audience to make such copies themselves. It is that 18th century suspension of liberty that is so unethical. The audience and artists among them have a fundamental, natural right to copy and build upon mankind’s culture. It is that right to copy that was suspended three centuries ago and granted as the exclusive privilege of the ‘copyright’ holder. So you should recognise that this ‘right to copy’ does not belong to the musician, but to the audience, to the public, to everyone. Be careful before you start talking in terms of your copyrights.
Sell your recordings. Do not sell copies.
You’ve sold your recordings to labels for years, so it’s not like you’re unfamiliar with the concept. Start selling them to your audience instead.
Treat your audience like your new record label. They will take care of A&R, promotion, reproduction, and distribution. That’s why the labels are squealing blue murder – because their customers for copies are now able to disintermediate them and make their own for nothing. However, that shouldn’t upset you because you’re not in the business of making and selling copies. You’re in the business of making and selling music, performances, recordings. Your paradigm shift is that you’re now selling to your audience directly instead of via a record label. But, critically, your audience can’t make your music instead of you. That’s why, unlike the labels, you’re not confronting the inevitable end of your business. So you don’t need a law to prohibit your audience making their own music instead of paying you for it. You certainly don’t need a law prohibiting your audience making and distributing copies. Heck, unlike record labels, your audience aren’t even charging you for that service.
So, what’s it going to be?
Is FAC going to stick to the business of making and selling music?
Or is FAC going to continue this nonsense of ‘educating’ their audience against making unauthorised copies?
What business is FAC in? Music or copies?
October 5th, 2009 at 10:02 am
those are also some good points i hadn’t thought about.
i think it’s also important to note that – as far as i can see from the FAC website – FAC only represents UK artists. at least, that’s what i get from looking at the member lists and official press statements and response to the government’s legislation proposals.
although FAC represents UK artists who for the most part are probably also associated with the RIAA, their main concern is for UK members of British Academy of Songwriters, Composers and Authors (BASCA) and the Music Producers Guild (MPG) and any UK legislation which affects them.
unless i’ve misinterpreted their statements and mission, it seems the FAC is mainly (only?) concerned with insuring that the featured artists (the headliner, the ones who the fans go to see or buy cds of) are paid appropriately.
but what about (and why not) all of the technicians, backup vocalists, band members (regular and studio performers). why do i get the feeling they’re not being represented by FAC? don’t they have a right to be paid the same as featured artists – especially since they might not have as much regular work as the headliner?
in whatever way(s) the FAC is successful, perhaps a chapter of FAC – or something similar can be startd in the USA, Canada, and elswhere?
October 5th, 2009 at 10:06 am
*correction*
when i wrote above: “…don’t they have a right to be paid the same as featured artists…”—–
i meant to say “…don’t they have a right to be paid **in the same way** as featured artists”.
sorry.
October 5th, 2009 at 2:10 pm
I’m hesitant to get behind anything supported by somebody who can put his name on a list recommending hamstringing the ‘net connections of filesharers, regardless of “pressures.”
Radio is NOT the model that p2p should be compared to at all. Sharing involves music fans getting real, full-quality music files that can share with others, use in their videos, post on their sites, whatever. When I hear radio being held up as the way for “artists to get paid” or “feels like free” I start thinking of programs like Choruss and Spotify that are more attempts to replace or compete with p2p instead of embrace it.
I have to completely agree with Crosbie Fitch on this one – there is no money to be made in selling copies. p2p is here to stay exactly the way it is – people sharing actual files all around the net. While Mr. Bragg here is enthusiastic about promoting his music on YouTube, how would he feel about his fans using those songs in their own videos? As much as I’d like to be proven otherwise, experience has taught me the hard way that overtures from people associated with industry front groups are never what they seem.
Maybe I’m wrong. Maybe you’re for real, Billy, and if that’s the case more power to you. But I’m not holding my breath.
October 5th, 2009 at 3:42 pm
Bravo ! To all of the posters here !! I believe the major points to discuss, as regards file sharing, have been raised here and repeated elsewhere, look around, these same “facts” are there and they really haven’t changed, since the concept of web/internet use hasn’t changed either. It still amazes me that so few decision makers, leaders et al, in our governments and in the very industries that should be benefiting most will not make the changes within their respective areas of responsibilities to promote and advance further evolution of this concept. I suppose many of them are just too old to grasp the realities ? I have to concur with Steelwolf and remain more than a little suspicious of any organization that attempts compromise with the devil, especially since it appears Billy Bragg and company understand the nature of the beast ?!? Then again, I’m not as close to the source as Mr.Bragg and I will try to remain optimistic about their future as artists and my future as a file sharer. I just turned 57 today Mr.Bragg and I have to say I do not know your music but, because I can go out here from my home in the middle of the US and find your music for free and listen to it for free, I will come to know you and understand you. May we both benefit.
October 5th, 2009 at 5:59 pm
This is a very interesting development. I’ve been away from the net for 24 hours, doing my day job at the Hardly Strictly Bluegrass Festival in San Francisco and before I can respond to Jon’s posting, two people in England have already mentioned that they’ve been reading this thread. Clearly, your idea is being watched with interest beyond this website.
Crosbie,
Thanks for offering your opinion of the state of play. I have to tell you that I don’t agree.
For instance, you can’t tell me “That’s as far as you can go”, no more than I can tell you you can share these files but no more.It simply doesn’t work like that. Who knows what means I might have of finding a niche where I can sell my work directly to people willing to pay for it? I doubt the new models for doing business will be either/or.
Your stated position is that of a diehard P2P user. In some ways it echoes the comments that FAC get from diehard record industry executives. Both of you expect us to be on one side or the other and are quick to condemn if we don’t show the same dedication as you do. Well, Crosbie, I have to tell you that FAC aren’t one your side to that extent – neither are we on the side of the labels. We seek to represent the third component of this relationship, the voice of the artists. What we want to do, as you’ll see from our website, is to ensure that artists can continue to make a living doing what they love most – making music. I’m talking especially here of new artists. We see it as being in all our interests to open a dialogue between the various parts of the new digital industry. As a result we talk to labels – Big 4 mostly – and we talk to ISPs. We talk to the Musicians Union in the UK and to the songwriters and producers unions too. We have so far never been able to have an ongoing dialogue with the P2P community, which is why Jon’s initiative is so interesting. If we can start to build confidence in this process, I believe that we all will benefit from your input.
catflap,
To clarify who the FAC represents – ‘featured artist’ is a legal term taken from standard recording contract. If you’ve signed a contract, either as a solo performer or part of a band, then you’re a featured artist. FAC is open to those who haven’t signed contracts and have no intention of doing so, but who would be the ones to take on that liability if they were signed up by a label. Does that make sense?
The other people you mention – studio technicians, backing singers, session musicians – we pay them directly. They are usually members of the Musicians Union in the UK and although we don’t represent them, we do stand up for their rights. However, FAC is not a union.
Jon,
I’d be interested to hear if there are specific issues that you like to talk about?
Can I ask if anyone here can offer a clear definition of the difference between a P2P user and a pirate? Is there a difference? I’m not seeking to be provocative, but if we are going to have this dialogue, then, in order that we do not offend each other, we need to be clear about the terms we use.
October 5th, 2009 at 6:04 pm
Personally, I’d take FAC a hell of a lot more seriously if they represented ALL musicians connected with/being screwed by the corporate media industry. Why the fuck should “headliners” get so much publicity, when what they do is very literally made POSSIBLE by “session musicians”, who are usually poorly-paid, and have NEVER had a stake in those all-precious copyright monopolies the headliners are bitching about?
I know people think it’s kinda lame, but that’s why the whole “Milli Vanilli” thing pisses me off: the idea that those two talentless jackoffs were foisted on us, when the REAL talent was session musicians who that bastard Farian just didn’t think had the right “look”.
Until — and unless — FAC explicitly stands for the interests of ALL artists (including unsung heroes like Session musicians — the ones who carry the entire corporate music ‘industry’ on their backs), I’m not taking it seriously.
If it’s *JUST* about headliners, then it’s just another elitist screwjob, every bit as pernicious as the RIAA, BFPI, and BREIN.
Just one of my pet peeves.
October 5th, 2009 at 6:32 pm
What about the poor buggers at the bottom with limited money. I know lets charge them way over the odds for their music, this as been happening since the sixties. Internet comes along and people start getting music for free (about time). All of a sudden music industry gets pissed off and throws its dummy out of the pram. Now governments of the world (chicken shits) suddenly side with music industry and decide a civil matter becomes a criminal matter.
The upshot of this rubbish is if you don’t cease & dissist we will slowdown or suspend your connection, but still charge you full price, you bad boy.
Sadly if you have no money, fuck you, you cannot have it.
October 5th, 2009 at 6:40 pm
If they in any way ,shape , or form support interfering with, stopping or slowing anyones internet connection
on the basis of ’suspected’ IP addresses without ANY due process, then they are full of shit. I don’t
care what they have to say as long as the internet ‘off switch’ is held as a bargaining chip.
That sounds more like blackmail or extortion.
October 5th, 2009 at 7:02 pm
Billy, I’m not telling you “That’s as far as you can go” as an edict, but as friendly advice to inform you and others in FAC as to your natural limitations.
I’m trying to help you realise that you can only hope to sell that which people are interested in buying from you.
Of course, you can try and sell copies if you want to. You can even attempt to enforce your monopolies against those who would promote your music to their friends by making and distributing unauthorised copies. You can try to do that, but I don’t recommend it as a business to get into because it doesn’t have a future.
To say you cannot sell snow to Sami, or sand to Saharans, is not a forbidding, but business advice.
I’m trying to tell you in the nicest way possible that you can’t sell copies to your audience.
I vaguely recall there was some ludicrous legislation in a South American country a few years ago that made it illegal to collect rainwater in order to protect the revenues of the local water supply companies, but really, to think that legislation against copying is going to create you a market to sell copies, is something either a pre-schooler or a mafioso would come up with as a viable business model. When the heavies are the state, and only a very few printing press owners can make copies, then perhaps such a protection racket has a hope of working, but those days are over.
If you read my previous comment again, more carefully, you will realise that I’m in complete agreement with you that you can sell your work directly to your enthusiastic audience willing and able to pay for it. But you don’t seem to be able to read that in what I write. All you can see is that I’m telling you that you can’t sell copies of your work.
I neither represent artists nor audiences. I champion individuals and their natural rights, against the anachronistic privileges granted for the benefit of publishing corporations. We are all artists, and all members of audiences of the artists we appreciate. Artists are individuals, as is everyone in an artist’s audience, so I champion all, indistinguishably. All have the same rights. None have rights that others do not. We are all equals on this planet. It is the anachronistic privilege of copyright that interferes with that natural equality. It is that privilege that sets publisher against public, artist against audience, and that privilege that should be abolished.
However, that’s just my position. What is of concern here is the position of FAC and its members.
The choice I’ve suggested that faces you is not whose side you are on, but what business you are in.
Are you in the business of making music, selling compositions, songs, performances, and recordings, OR are you in the business of making and distributing monopoly protected copies and broadcasts thereof?
When you’ve decided what business you’re in, perhaps then it will be clearer to you whether you need to sue your customers for disrespecting your monopoly, or whether you should explore ways of selling your music to your audience instead of to record labels.
It’s one of those red pill/blue pill dichotomies. Bear in mind that the software industry is already well divided by such a schism, and those on each side regard the others as having an alien mindset. That’s how deep the paradigm shift goes.
Don’t write it off as ‘freeloaders wanting stuff for nothing’ – that’s pure propaganda. We’re talking free as in speech, not as in beer. This is the cultural liberty of an emancipated people, not an impoverished and culturally stagnant cultist commune.
So, have you made up your mind yet?
Music or copies?
October 5th, 2009 at 7:20 pm
hi again, Billy. thanks for replying to us.
on the definition of “pirates”:
the p2p community – hardcore or otherwise – resents the label “pirate”, a term the Kartels and lamescream media use to characterise all filesharers.
“pirate” is reserved for those that FAC clearly wants disabled and eliminated. pirates copy the cd/dvd/software and SELL them. they profit financially from your work. the pirates share nothing and they make big bucks at it.
filesharers make no money at all. we share what we have.
FILESHARERS ARE NOT PIRATES. we steal nothing.
a case for piracy could be made against the many so-called “private trackers”, which have limited memberships. membership is free, but people are encouraged to donate to server costs/upgrades, etc. and often raffle off prizes for donators. if you don’t maintain an acceptable share ratio, you’re kicked out.
we’ve seen a few high-profile tracker/listing sights like this in recent years. the most notable one was Lokitorrent, which had raised at least $40K in a very short amount of time, then was shut down by the FBI and the owners got away with the cash – as far as the general public knows. although Loki wasn’t a private membership only site and was open to anyone, it did have it’s own trackers.
thanks for the explanation about “featured artists”, although when you say you pay the tudio technicians, backing singers, session musicians directly, i’m sure you do.
but does that mean they also get a cut from record sales and music videos, as their names are surely on the jacket?
i’m also a musician/actor (sadly, not professionally), so as a layperson i’m not familiar with the ins and outs of the unions and who gets paid when, where and what.
i know you’ve been working and are about to continue your tous, but i hope you’ll take the time to look at all of our other messages and ideas in the earlier thread here:
http://www.p2pnet.net/story/29279
…and possibly reply to some of them.
as you probably know, i’ve been writing for p2pnet for some years. i don’t give my email address online, but if you would like to contact me, jon can give it to you.
thanks for being a part of our community. all the best.
catflap
p2pnet
October 5th, 2009 at 8:18 pm
P2P User: Someone who uses a distributed file sharing system – a system optimised for distributing files with economic use of available resources, especially bandwidth.
Pirate: Someone who distributes intellectual works irrespective of the permission of the copyright holder, and who infringes that monopoly as a consequence.
A P2P user may be a pirate, but not necessarily.
A pirate may be a P2P user, but not necessarily.
October 5th, 2009 at 9:11 pm
@Crosbie Fitch,
By “and who infringes that monopoly as a consequence” do you imply the financial monopoly? The supposed-to-be temporary monetary monopoly that grants the ‘rights’ holder the ability to be the sole person to create copies, distribute copies, perform etc… for a fee chosen by them?
P2P Users do not copy and redistribute, charging a fee. They don’t receive any revenue whatsoever for distribution of works/files, whether they are copyrighted or not.
October 5th, 2009 at 10:55 pm
Henry,
When the RIAA come after you, they don’t do it on behalf of session musicians who don’t have copyrights, they do it in the name of featured artists whose copyrights they own. Now there is a debate to be had about how shabbily the industry treats session musicians, but it’s not this debate. I know you’d like it to be, because it would enable you to dismiss me as an elitist scewjob. Sadly, the arguments are not that cut and dried. And calling me names is not going to change that reality.
I suggest you exercise your pet peeves somewhere else – and make sure you clean up after them.
Crosbie,
This two pill thing…. its not such a black and white issue. Many musicians do both and manage to make a living. I know it would make things much more easy for you if you could force me to chose between music or copies, but we’re going to have to be a little more open to debate if we want to create an environment in which P2P is recognised as a powerful promotional tool. That’s what I want from our discussions here. You interested?
catflap,
session musicians don’t generally get paid beyond their session fee. The reasoning is that they don’t have to pay back the advances that we have signed up to. However, the Musicians Union is fighting for session players to get royalties after a certain period and FAC supports them in this fight.
October 5th, 2009 at 11:24 pm
” but we’re going to have to be a little more open to debate if we want to create an environment in which P2P is recognised as a powerful promotional tool. That’s what I want from our discussions here. You interested? ”
Of course we’re interested, as long as the ‘openness’ of which you speak comes from you as well as us.
I haven’t seen too much of that .. yet, but i’ll wait.
” I suggest you exercise your pet peeves somewhere else – and make sure you clean up after them. ”
Be sure to do the same, and leave the words ‘thief’ , ‘pirate’ , ’stealing’ out of the conversation, and
leave the ‘Download equals a lost sale’ rhetoric outside and you just might find everyone can be
reasonable.
But,
the moment it is suggested , once again, that cutting off or throttling internet access without proof or due
process is the way to go, any illusion of open debate will disappear.
Do you support that ?
Do you think that’s the way to go for the general filesharing population ?
I did notice you haven’t addressed that directly
October 5th, 2009 at 11:41 pm
@dredd…
have a good look through the FAC website and i know a lot of your concerns will be alleviated.
excerpts from
Joint Statement on P2P Legislation
10th September 2009
“However we have serious reservations about the content and scope of the proposed legislation outlined in the consultation on P2P file-sharing. Processes of monitoring, notification and sanction are not conducive to achieving a vibrant, functional, fair and competitive market for music. As a result we believe that the specific questions asked by the consultation are not only unanswerable but indicate a mindset so far removed from that of the general public and music consumer that it seems an extraordinarily negative document.
The very fuzzy estimates for the annual benefits of such legislation (£200 million per year) make clear that such estimates are based firmly upon the premise that a P2P downloaded track equals a lost sale. This “substitutional” argument is, in reality, no more than “lobbyists’ speak”: it has little support from logic and no economist would seek to weave such a number into a metric aimed at quantifying a ‘value gap’ for the industries challenged by P2P.
In contrast to the lack of any credible evidence for the size of the substitutional effect, there is evidence that repeat file-sharers of music are also repeat purchasers of music, movies, documentaries etc. Recent research by MusicAlly has demonstrated the continued popularity of the CD as the purchased product of choice by many music fans. This combined with the continued significance of the CD in the revenue balance of record labels, suggests a much more complex equation in which file-sharing may erode sales, but where it may also promote other revenue streams. For this reason it is dangerous to view the downloading of music as the direct online equivalent of CD sales.
Much online activity surrounding the sharing of music often coincides with a great deal of fan support for the artist concerned. The centrality of the artist in the new music ecology is such that the lobbying by labels to continue to try to sue or sanction music fans must be placed in a broader context of those fans’ behaviour. It must also be seen in the context not of the loss to a particular business constituency but whether it represents a real loss to the economy as a whole.”
*****
dredd, there’s a whole lot more there and i think you and others should read it and the rest of the website. it certainly cleared a lot up for me.
October 5th, 2009 at 11:45 pm
also noteworthy…
“What the consultation’s proposals singularly fail to do is differentiate between the downloading and sharing of music by music fans, on a non-commercial basis, and those who seek financial gain or commercial advantage from such activity. This second group of “commercial” P2P users and facilitators should be pursued with the full force of the law as is the case with illegal CD plants in the offline world. Ordinary music fans and consumers should not be criminalised because of the failings of a legacy sector of business to adapt sufficiently fast to new technological challenges.
October 6th, 2009 at 12:26 am
I would only add the following to Catflap’s definition:
P2P users have been repeatedly labeled pirates by the Recording Industry, and many of us wear it as a badge of honor. However, by others, the pirate label is resented, so you’re probably safer using the more agreeable term when talking about folks who trade files without remuneration, so as not to distract from the issues.
October 6th, 2009 at 12:50 am
Rupert Murdoch! Eat your hat now!
You claimed news on the web are getting paid. Maybe your outlets are to be paid, but there are others who are to be free.
And we are getting a quality PAPER newspaper now for free, with advertisements.
http://alexanderlebedev.blogspot.com/2009/10/london-evening-standard-will-go-free-12.html
October 6th, 2009 at 4:24 am
Dreddsnik,
<>
How long have we been discussing this on p2pnet? Since Friday. Have I used any of those accusative words in my posts? I don’t believe that one download equals one lost sale.
<>
Do I believe that throttling is a good idea? No I don’t – as far as I’m concerned there is no technical solution. Do I think it would help our case with the filesharing population? No I don’t, that’s why I’m here to have this discussion, to try to move the debate on.
Having said that, if you are just going to run away if anyone says Boo! to you, then we are not going to get very far. Because there are people out there who think that throttling in a good idea and some of them are supporters of the FAC. They come to our events, like the one we held last night in London (check out our website for the topics we hoped to cover – I wasn’t there so I don’t know how it went)
Our task is to convince them that the suppression of illegal filesharing is a long-term, highly expensive, technologically fraught strategy with serious implications for personal privacy. It is questionable whether any of the money saved will ever find its way to the artists who have suffered loss of income.
It would be counter-productive for us to present our fellow artists with a pro-filesharing argument. That is your job. We want to facilitate that discussion, which is why I’m here posting at 12.35am West Coast time after my gig.
We want your input in this debate – we can’t make any progress without it. That doesn’t mean that we all have to agree with each other all the time on every aspect of this debate. What matters is that our goal is the same. What I want from this process is for artists to be able to make a living selling their music over the internet and for P2P to play an enabling role in that process.
What do you want?
October 6th, 2009 at 5:56 am
Robert, Copyright suspends the individual’s natural right to make copies and grants it as a transferable privilege attached to an original work for the benefit of printers. It enables the holder to exclude others from making copies and in effect grants them a monopoly in the production and supply (for money or gratis) of copies of a covered work.
It’s a nasty piece of legislation and should be abolished.
It would still be nasty even if it exempted non-commercial infringement. You can’t look forward to such a ‘reform’ in any case because it both denies the copyright holder their monopoly and the public their liberty to exchange their labour in a free market.
So, it’s really irrelevant to copyright infringement and the definition of piracy whether file-sharers exchange files for love or money. If you manufacture a copy in whole or part of a work subject to copyright without the holder’s permission then you infringe copyright, if you distribute such copies to a large number of others (for love or money) then you are a pirate.
Right or wrong is not defined by piracy. It is not wrong to share and build upon mankind’s culture. The wrong is in granting a privilege that prohibits it. It is the interference with a merchant’s trade and monopolies thereof that gives rise to the term of piracy.
October 6th, 2009 at 6:50 am
Thanks Crosbie, I was hoping for the monetary gain only option, which is what all those FBI warnings used to be about, if I understood them correctly. The new ones include what you have mentioned, but the 1977 Stockholm ones were about selling copies, at least that’s how I interpreted them.
October 6th, 2009 at 6:55 am
Billy, I’m always interested in discussion of the issues and progress toward solutions, especially where solutions restore people’s liberty to share and build upon published works, and enable people to exchange their labour in a free market.
I daresay there are many who would like to portray this clash of perspectives as an encounter between artists trying to make a decent living and a den of thieves. It’s a little more fundamental than that. It’s a conflict between unnatural law that says that information can’t be copied and natural law that says it can. The outcome of that conflict is obvious to anyone familiar with the schism concerning geo vs heliocentricity.
What we’re left with is the problem of a lack of facilities that enable artists to exchange their work for the money of their audience. It’s a problem caused through the neglect of three centuries, a period in which no-one needed such facilities because of the reproduction monopoly known as copyright. Artists sold their work to printers, and printers sold copies that no-one else could legally produce. Copyright didn’t have to be legislated, but it was, and as a consequence the evolution of facilities for exchanges between artists and their audiences ground to a halt.
That’s why I’m trying to be upfront with you that this is the situation. We are all interested in how to buy and sell intellectual work in a world in which one can no longer sell copies at monopoly protected prices. If kids can make copies for nothing, you’re not going to be able to change that through holy fiat, education, or bandwidth squeezing, and so you’re not going to be able to sell them copies. Fortunately, kids can’t make your music (at least not without years of effort), so you can at least sell them that.
If this rapprochement is to discover how to stop kids file-sharing you’re barking up the wrong tree. If it’s to discover how to sell your music to your audience, well, come on up.
October 6th, 2009 at 7:54 am
Robert, penalties for infringement and defences of fair use may have depended upon whether the infringing copies were made for commercial gain and what their total market value was, but that doesn’t really affect the definition of piracy. It may affect the language of ‘FBI warnings’ though.
October 6th, 2009 at 11:05 am
” Having said that, if you are just going to run away if anyone says Boo! to you, ”
That’s not productive either. To do that or suggest that I would is a bit insulting, deliberately I think, no matter.
The best argument for filesharing’s ability to make money for the copyright holder ( i’ll
use the terms the RIAA uses in court, I am fully aware that the rightsholder is almost never
the artist ) is the business model that still exists, but the RIAA members did their best to
destroy.
AllOf MP3.com
They charged per byte downloaded.
This meant that higher quality cost more, but even that was a modest enough fee that
many were willing to pay.
A whole lot of people, all over the world.
Other benefits of that model …
It was very easy to track exactly what artists were downloaded, and how much was spent
on them, so calculating how much each artists should get paid was a breeze.
In spite of what the labels say, they were paying the proper fees to the Russian collective
society, so why the hell did the labels work so hard to bring it down, when it was the ideal
selling model ?
For one, they didn’t come up with it, so they couldn’t control it, which meant ANYONE could
easily be on all ofmp3.
They didn’t like the price point, insisting on a fee per ‘track’ model which is nonsense on the
internet. they want a dollar per track and it’s up to the RIAA what quality you get for that.
Consumer choice appears to be a dirty word for the RIAA members.
The fact that it was easy to track who should get paid is not a selling point for executives,
who need to cloak the cash flow. It’s hard to hide who’s getting the money when it’s so
trackable. The RIAA members prefer models based on ‘estimates’. One really must
wonder why that is.
The ideal model was there, and slapped down.
It proved that people would pay for DRM free music, at a reasonable price.
Your industry had it, and smashed it.
Ask them why ?
Leave the insults at the door, I have, you can too.
October 6th, 2009 at 11:21 am
Hmmm,
Corporations that don’t want to give their customers what they want… I think I’ve heard something about this. Ah yes the big American car manufacturers that decided they knew what was best for for their customers, now someone remind me how did that work out for them?
October 6th, 2009 at 11:53 am
I’m kinda with Henry on this, and as usual he said it better.
1. Retract your ‘overwhelming’ support for Liy Allen and her corporate paymasters. Do NOT support throttling (even for ‘incorrigible’ file-sharers) because doing so inevitably demonizes the entire p2p community, and in so doing, concedes the corporate labels’ entire argument.
2. Issue a statement advocating that copyright terms be reduced to something more reasonable/less overtly pernicious. (Remember, Billy: for all your bravado about how p2pers are ’stealing your apples’, the fact is, those ‘apples’ were — and are — indended to eventually enter the Public Domain. Monopoly privileges like copyright are just that — PRIVILEGES, and, as the p2p thing illustrates, you/your corporate handers ignore that at your peril.
3. Read Lawrence Lessig’s book “Free Culture”. It’s available on the Net for free, and it’s not that long. Hell, there’s even an “audiobook” version for free download, so you don’t even have THAT excuse.
If you’re going to run an ‘advocacy’ lobby, it only makes sense that you understand at least something about the issues you’re lobbying about.
4. Please stop recycling corporate boilerplate about the ‘threat’ posed by p2p. Despite their whimpering, the corporate entertainment industry is doing just fine. P2p represents a potential threat to them, alright: the threat that folks might be able to get noticed WITHOUT having a multi-billion dollar corporate propaganda machine behind them.
(You, of ALL people, should understand the inherent appeal of DIY, REAL grassroots, etc. After all, you did come out of the Punk scene, which was pretty much built on fanzines and GENUINELY independent labels, some of which were thrown together very literally on a shoestring budget.)
Particular emphasis on items 2 and 4.
I’ve already pointed out a completely viable and proven sales model.
How do you feel about item 2 ?
October 6th, 2009 at 11:54 am
Sorry, those items were directly lifted from Henry Emrich’ post in a different thread.
October 6th, 2009 at 7:01 pm
I would like to thank Billy for taking the effort to come here to explore how a potential accord/undertsanding can be acheived through sensible dialogue and mutual understanding. I myself am a member of a small group who operate a medium scale filesharing network (250,000+ users) where no advertising is present or finance changes hands and I have purely posted here to let Billy know that his words are being read and digested with interest outside of the regular posters here, we agree its fair to be paid for your work and for this reason we ask folks not to share copyrighted works but we are aware goes on, new ideas/conceptual models to compensate artists in other forms than the lawsuit are awaited here with much interest and I also hope the “well worn” rhetoric I,m seeing in this thread dies an early death and real dialogue is allowed to occur as currently there is an impasse situation where no one benefits, perhaps change is in the wind ?
Cheers Billy.
October 7th, 2009 at 10:34 am
This debate is great, it sorts out people who want better music services and stop the crazy war on P2P, and those who just want to kick back at creative people where it hurts them the most.
Crosbie wants copyright abolished – plain and simple. Look up Crosbie on Google and he posts day and night about abolishing copyright, it’s his single issue.
But people happily pay for CDs now and we’ll happily pay for a great P2P file sharing service. The commenter here who says Spotify isn’t P2P is dead right, it isn’t.
Billy, please remember that Crosbie Fitch and the Lessig crowd are not representative of the views of P2P file sharers, we’d like to vote with our wallets but can’t. No need to pay attention to sideshow extremists, they have had their 15 minutes.
October 8th, 2009 at 12:52 pm
But people happily pay for CDs now and we’ll happily pay for a great P2P file sharing service.
I think that’s not only false, but foolish. Why would anybody chose to pay for something they could just as easily get for free? For every one of you who feels like forking over cash for free items, there will be thousands of reasonable people getting that stuff for free.
The future isn’t at all in “monetizing” digital files. It’s in accepting that those files have no monetary value but infinite promotional value. Use the files to create fans, then provide those fans with ways to buy things that are actually worth something.
Creating a digital version of a “record store” and then forcing people to use it is exactly what the RIAA has been trying, and failing, to do for years.
October 10th, 2009 at 10:55 pm
“Crosbie wants copyright abolished – plain and simple. Look up Crosbie on Google and he posts day and night about abolishing copyright, it’s his single issue. But people happily pay for CDs now and we’ll happily pay for a great P2P file sharing service. The commenter here who says Spotify isn’t P2P is dead right, it isn’t.”
October 10th, 2009 at 11:01 pm
“Crosbie wants copyright abolished – plain and simple. Look up Crosbie on Google and he posts day and night about abolishing copyright, it’s his single issue. But people happily pay for CDs now and we’ll happily pay for a great P2P file sharing service. The commenter here who says Spotify isn’t P2P is dead right, it isn’t.”
Y’know WHY folks like Crosbie want copyright abolished?
Because the corporate lobbyists keep buying themselves longer and longer terms.
As to your other stuff about how “people happily pay for CD’s” — that has WHAT to do with copyright, exactly?
Every time I buy a “used” book or CD, by your “logic”, because of the first-sale doctrine, I “hit creative people where it hurts the most” because the rights-holders don’t get paid.
I also don’t think that allofmp3.com was neccesarily the best approach. I don’t think there IS a single “best” approach.
Magnatune represents a step forward — free streaming, but you get to name your own price — from a minimum up to whatever you *want* to pay, and you know in advance exactly how much of it is actually going to the artists themselves, not getting sucked up by the labels.
Trying not to be “snarky” here, but your jabs about the “Lessig crowd” almost made me cry! We’re REAL PEOPLE, Damnit! Sniffle sniffle boo hoo hoo.
(Enough “sly little cracks”, folks. Obviously y’all don’t share my sense of humor.