Billy Bragg solves the file sharing problem
p2pnet news view | P2P | Music:- There’s an urgent need for performers to nurture fans and, “the relationship … an artist has with them is the only one that counts”.
That was Britain’s Billy Bragg (right) in an “incredible, rowsing speech to huge applause” during the Featured Artists Coalition meeting at Air Studios in London.
That was when Lily Allen’s, “intervention highlighted the conflicted feelings of many musicians and artists,” as Jeremy Silver, who chaired the meeting, put it.
“On the one hand they recognise the incredible potential and value of the net — on the other hand they can’t feel entirely comfortable knowing that their ability to make a living from their own creativity is being reduced by the actions of millions of people who consume without valuing their work — because they can,” he said.
The group ended up endorsing, “The new proposal from Lord Peter Mandelson for the UK to adopt a policy of broadband account suspension to be applied to the heaviest sharers, the now famous ‘egregious offenders’ has sparked the new row, to use Silver’s words again.
Said an official FAC statement issued later »»»
Our meeting … overwhelmingly to 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.
Put the squeeze on users’ accounts? Terrific idea.
It’d be particularly interesting to see how the ISPs target individual users, and then how they deal with them. Or would it be on a job lot basis — anyone X over the (predetermined) limit gets Bragged?
Performers at the meeting, “were able to agree on bandwidth restriction as final sanction for egregious offenders,” he says in an editorial in The Guardian, declaring, “We held back from suspension of internet accounts because we felt it was disproportionate and punitive, but most of all, we held back because we didn’t believe it was in the best interests of our profession.”
In other words, it doesn’t matter whether or not it’s in the best interests of the people who Bragg, et al, depend on to survive. The financial concerns of FAC members are primary.
This is a war that no one can win
“While the recording industry continues to make threatening noises towards kids who swap music files among themselves, our real enemies, the illegal download sites that make money giving our music away for free, are disappearing off the radar into darknets,” he says.
The trouble, Billy, is the corporate music industry long ago stopped making merely threatening noises. They’ve been actively engaged in government supported corporate terrorism, putting the legal frighteners on entire families, including very young children, in your name, and the names of everyone else who signed FAC statement, since 2003.
And the real action has been on the ‘darknets’ for years where music is mostly shared, not sold. Moreover, they’ve never been on the radar. That’s why they not only still exist, but multiply.
“This is a war that no one can win,” Bragg says, continuing »»»
As the pirates always manage to stay one step ahead of the latest clampdown, the recording industry will continue to ask legislators for ever tighter sanctions, leading ultimately to an internet controlled by and for big business, which can only be accessed by those willing to pay.
He got that right, going on »»»
The loss to the creative community would be catastrophic. The internet has made it possible for individual artists to make, distribute and promote their own works with the active support of P2P networks. For new artists to flourish, it is vital that the internet remain free to all.
He got that right too.
But then »»»
The next step is to create “feels like free” services. We need legal networks licenced by record companies that give users access to all the music they want for a subscription fee. We need P2P communities that spread the word for new artists while offering advertising platforms so that an artist whose work is downloaded can receive reciprocal payment from advertising revenue.
“Feels like free” means it ain’t.
And artists, “must be prepared to work with the record industry and with legislators on a programme of education aimed at increasing awareness of the damaging aspects of illegal downloading on the livelihoods of the creative community and those who work with us to produce our work,” says Bragg.
Programme of education?
You mean indoctrination, don’t you Billy, adding intellectual property and copyright law to classrooms along with reading, riting and ‘rithmetic? Warping the minds of our children, even those only five or six years old, twisting them and their perceptions to fit the false standards of the corporate movie and music industries, at the same time accusing their parents of being criminals and thieves?
He adds:
“However, we will not be able to marginalise the pirates until we can offer accessible, easy to use, fairly priced alternative business models that people will actually want to buy their music from. While we may never be able to sink The Pirate Bay, the challenge we face is to make it look boring, shoddy and unreliable.”
There is no war
Another way to sink the ‘pirates’ would be for Bragg and his mates to stand up together against the labels and show them artists, at the least, understand the customer is always right.
Because in the world of corporate music, music lovers are customers and absolutely must be treated with respect, not hatred and contempt.
Then all the Big 4 will have to do is »»»
- Admit they made a mistake. It`s not too late, even now, and they’d generate mind-boggling amounts of positive, instead of negative, publicity, at the same time bringing hundreds of thousands of potential customers back into the fold.
- Fully open their catalogues and reduce their wholesale prices
- License product to the literally thousands of download, radio and streaming sites who are begging to be able to sell whatever the labels care to produce
- Admit competition is here and deal with it, because it isn` t going away
- Do the same with P2P and file sharing, because they aren’t going away either.
- And most important of all, start treating the people they depend on as customers who can be relied on, instead of criminals and thieves who have to be continually threatened and bullied.
That, or continue to “look boring, shoddy and unreliable” as they are today.
And there’s one other thing Bragg should bear in mind.
“The wars are all in the mind of the entertainment industry,” I posted almost exactly a year ago, adding:
“P2p is here to stay and without wishing to be corny, the people have spoken, and loudly. When the various corporate interests finally admit they’re operating in the digital 21st century and not the physical 1970s, things will settle down.”
Jim Griffin, who these days is pounding Warner music’s Choruss licensing scheme beat, once told me the labels, “cling to their pursuit of this notion of control and calling those who do not comply thieves, and in doing so they leave billions on the table that should be divided fairly amongst creators and rights holders”.
The companies won’t be able to leave those billions floating around for ever. Their contracted artists and shareholders won’t let them.
UPDATES:--
Also see Billy Bragg to p2pnet
And We are the walrus. Or, thank you Lily Allen
Jon Newton – p2pnet
First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win ~ Mahatma Gandhi
incredible, rowsing speech – Lily Allen and the Arctic Monkeys: the bond, September 28, 2009
The Guardian – A better way to sink internet pirates, September 30, 2009
warping the minds – Copyright Alliance: mind-raping our children, April 23, 2000
almost exactly a year ago – Through the mirror backwards, October 4, 2008
Choruss licensing scheme – `Tens of thousands` sign up for Choruss, June 12, 2009
Use free p2pnetnewsfeeds for your site. It`s really easy!
Subscribe to ppnet.net | | rss feed: http://p2pnet.net/p2p.rss | | Mobile – http://p2pnet.net/index-wml.ph
Net access blocked by government restrictions? Use Psiphon from the Citizen Lab at the University of Toroto. Go here for details.
October 2nd, 2009 at 8:07 am
“Admit they made a mistake. Itâs not too late, even now, and theyâd generate mind-boggling amounts of positive, instead of negative, publicity, at the same time bringing hundreds of thousands of potential customers back into the fold.”
For some it is too late… I lost too much trust in the music industry a long time ago when they introduced rootkits and DRM effectively killing my computer. I will never buy music online again after being ripped off with DRM crippled music of an appauling quality.. and I won’t buy CD’s as my only CD player is in my computer and I refuse to put their rootkit infested crapware anywhere near it!
October 2nd, 2009 at 12:05 pm
What about real independent artists whom are not part of FAC because they are not on any label? Say I set up a secure GNU/Linux “server” out of my old laptop. have it share songs I WROTE MYSELF and thus own ALL RIGHTS TO and share it, what’s to stop my account from being falsely closed down?
And what happens to me, the lowly musician trying to make a living USING free distribution via the web and using Twitter/Facebook/my blog to connect with fans and arranging random live performances for only $5 a ticket if in a park, having picnics, creating random swag for dirt cheap, jamming with fans, maybe even cooking with fans for donations towards my releases? Maybe even having fans offer up $1 for two songs written but not yet recorded, kinda like Crosby Fitch’s idea of being paid first and then encouraging others to make copies, so I am not paid for copies but paid for the original creation?
I’d be SOL because of major label sub label people in the FAC organization.
Oh, and when I write a script in AWK or write some C application to parse and sort binary data files, I do NOT get paid for every copy made or every execution. Instead I get paid to create more! If I don’t create, I don’t get paid!
While reading TheCure.com’s blog by Robert Smith (oddly, nothing updated since May 2009), Robert goes on about the unfairness of a new artist with file sharing. In one paragraph he mentions for those who cannot perform live or look good (no merchandise) what will they do if all they can do is create in the studio? They keep creating! And if they have to have a part-time job to support it, then so be it!
I’d love to do Linux driver development and TCP/IP networking and firewalls, RTOS development, and finally, lots of multiprocess interprocess communication. But you know what? I don’t get paid for that because that’s not my job, so I have to work doing other things I may not like to supplement the other. That is life!
I also try to manage music, cyclocross (which requires a LOT of training if you are just starting out and is very physically demanding, on the bike, off the bike, over the barriers without hindering momentum), work, and programming tutorials on the side.
So not everyone is going to be Radiohead or Nine Inch Nails, and not everyone can market themselves well, but maybe they can write. So you get what we have now, some can write, some can perform only, some can market, some can manage studio equipment — WORK TOGETHER! and You’ll all get some income. You may not be rich unless you’re willing to be like the corporations, bully people and screw them over for rights and financial gains.
Why do you create in the first place? Because you need to clear your head? Because you love to create? Or because you want to be rich and famous? If the last option is you, then you’ll hate the web and filesharing. If the others are you, and you’re sincere, you CAN earn a living and you CAN embrace the web to help you!
Think outside the box!
October 2nd, 2009 at 1:24 pm
So what about public broadcasting? In the US, it’s available to anyone who has a TV or radio. It’s commercial-free. And you can get it without paying for it. But people DO pay for it – in quarterly ‘marathon’ broadcasts where stations ask for public and corporate support. Stations get additional support from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which provides competitive grant programs for capital needs and equipment upgrades. Other nonprofit organizations provide funding for development of high quality content.
Why couldn’t this kind of model work for musicians? Consumers pay as they value, content is quality-driven rather than profit-driven, and artists get paid.
Artists get paid! What a thought!!
October 2nd, 2009 at 1:34 pm
@maggie:
I love those PBS marathons. There was this gardening guy explaining how you can make your own fertilizer and such from house-hold items, almost everything was a cup of Palmolive and half a can of Coke.
Those marathons engage communities! “You enjoy it? Why not support it?” with no threats of “you don’t support and pay what we demand, screw you we’re cutting off your entertainment!”
Amazing how year after year they keep going forward, working for the money they collect and providing valuable, customer supported work for the money they collect.
October 2nd, 2009 at 4:56 pm
“In other words, it doesnât matter whether or not itâs in the best interests of the people who Bragg, et al, depend on to survive. The financial concerns of FAC members are primary.”
I don’t think there’s necessarily anything wrong with that. “Look out for #1″ is the only moral that’s widely (in fact almost universally) observed by both humans and animals. The problem is that the government should be taking all sides into account when making laws, not just the one with the most money (which tends to be a tiny minority in terms of people). It’s expected that the RIAA and other industry groups will push for what most benefits them; the government should be tempering those interests with the interest of the people and the ISPs, in this case, to form a compromise that is best for everyone, and to not let some people get totally screwed over by what benefits others. In other words, the problem is with government, not the lobby groups.
October 2nd, 2009 at 6:08 pm
“Programme of education?
You mean indoctrination, donât you Billy, adding intellectual property and copyright law to classrooms along with reading, riting and ârithmetic? Warping the minds of our children, even those only five or six years old, twisting them and their perceptions to fit the false standards of the corporate movie and music industries, at the same time accusing their parents of being criminals and thieves?”
Heh. That’s a sticky situation. I’ve stated multiple times on other sites that I believe the only viable long-term strategy to minimize piracy is education – to instill respect for the law and respect for creators (e.g. me); any attempts to further reduce piracy will end up being more expensive and/or destructive than the positive benefits those laws bring.
The problem is that the various content industries have painted themselves into a corner; thanks to their misadventures, copyright law is currently in a state where it can’t be respected by a rational person. We’ve seen well that attempts to teach laws that are not respected have the opposite effect: it breeds contempt for and rebellion against the law. That leaves only two other methods of persuasion: brainwashing (forcing information into people’s minds in such a way that it bypasses reason) and ruling by fear (using fear of punishment to force people to obey a law they disrespect).
Naturally they’ll never support revising the law so that a reasonable person can respect it, as that would involve “taking away their rights”. Thus they are going with the only remaining options: indoctrination in school and ruling by fear in civil court (although they haven’t yet managed to generate enough fear for much of an effect).
October 2nd, 2009 at 9:24 pm
“Billy Bragg” (whoever that is) can blow me:
Y’know what WOULD solve the p2p “crisis?”
1. Drastically shorter copyright terms (say, 7 years, no extensions). That way, the corporate oligarchy wouldn’t have to “open their catalog”, because it wouldn’t legally be “their” catalog anymore (which is what’s supposed to happen eventually, in case anybody even REMEMBERS the public domain anymore, btw.
2. End corporate “personhood”. I know we fetishize capitalism and business in this — and other — countries, but if we’re going to lie to ourselves about a “free enterprise system”, then we should start by depriving the business-class of their primary “safety net”/cost-externalizing machine, the corporation itself.
3. Multi-millionaire corporate puppets should just shut the fuck up, because every time they open their mouths on this topic, it just comes across as them being greedy douchebags. Stop being corporate puppets, and have some fuckin’ gumption. (Of course, that would require that they drop out of astroturf bullshit like the FAC, and actually start thinking.
Corporate sock-puppets can blow me.
October 3rd, 2009 at 2:40 am
Jon,
“The customer is always right” unless the customer wants everything you’ve made for free. Then different rules apply.
We’re not going to make any progress on forming the new business models if you have the record industry penalising fans on one hand and you guys making helpful suggestions like “Multi-millionaire corporate puppets should just shut the fuck up, maaaaan”. You want us to ‘have some fuckin’ gumption’, Henry? Well stop telling us to shut the fuck up when we try to engage you in some debate about what the corporations are doing to the net.
The only way we’re going to change the way things are done is if artists and fans work together to build new models that give fans what they want and allow artists to earn a living from their recordings. And what do you think that the FAC is, Jon?? It’s me and my mates standing together as artists to tell the label that their business model is fucked.
The education I was talking about has to work for artists too. Too many of them, especially the younger, newer artists, believe what they are told by their labels and managers about the ‘threat’ of illegal downloading. They have to be coaxed into understanding that the internet is the greatest thing to happen to musicians since the invention of the gramaphone. For that to happen we are going to need some input from your community and support too. Because you’re right, there is no war between artists and music fans.
btw ‘feels like free’ doesn’t meant that you have to pay. Commercial radio is free for you to listen to but we still get paid. P2P platforms could do the same kind of thing.
One last point to Robert – go onto our website http://www.featuredartistscoalintion.com and check out the names of the people who signed up to the Air Agreement. I doubt you will recognise 20% of the names. The vast majority of FAC supporters are like yourself, just want to make a living doing what they love to do. Our challenge is to keep the net open to people like yourself, so that they can continue to make music on their own terms.
Billy Bragg, hotel room, San Francisco CA
October 3rd, 2009 at 2:43 am
Shit, I mistyped the FAC url – its late, I just got in from London. sorry. Try this
http://www.featuredartistscoalition.com
if that doesn’t work, just google ‘corporate sock puppets’
October 3rd, 2009 at 3:57 am
“…stop telling us to shut the fuck up when we try to engage you in some debate about what the corporations are doing to the net.”
I don’t exactly see the FAC “engaging” any of “us”.
They engaged each other and came up with their own “comprimise” as to how “illegal downloaders” should be “handled”. As if this groups of artists had been given some sort of authority to act on something which they have no actual control over.
You guys can convene and network all you want, talking about how YOU WANT things to work, and draft up all sort of laws and protocols around that. Then what?!? You haven’t got that kind of say in this. The quicker you all realize that, the quicker you can get to the part where you see where your money is to be made.
As for “educating” students, you have no more business taking your case to the kids than the RIAA itself. These children have been born into a completely different world where your labels’ business model was dead to them before they even got in school (something you have already stated yourself). This whole idea of “teaching the youth” all the falsehoods surrounding copyright is not only completely inappropriate, but a desperate and evil act by the labels. The FAC cannot possibly hope to gain any more respect engaging in their own version of the same.
Kids need to learn only the realities of it all, and that they already get quite properly from their approved teachers…
1) Copyright is a TEMPORARY PRIVILEGE that is supposed to EXPIRE after a REASONABLE amount of time.
2) Infringing a copyright is a CIVIL INFRACTION. (Not a criminal act, as the RIAA has been insisting on having it taught.)
3) Work is supposed to eventually pass to the PUBLIC DOMAIN, in order to benefit culture, innovation, society.
4) Copyright is NOT some guarantee of a life-long income for the creator, the rights holder(s), and/or their children and grandchildren.
Too many artists and creators have sold away their soles to the existing, failed business model, which already raped them of any fair compensation for their efforts. What they need to do is start realizing that all the rhetoric about file sharing they’ve had shoved down their throats by their labels over the years has no foundation in reality, and to completely stop blaming their fans for the mess they’re in.
You can’t have it both ways.
Either you understand how the new digital world can work for you, and use it to your advantage, or you continue to embrace the brainwashing by your industry – that everyone’s a fuckin’ criminal, that you can’t succeed without the MAFIAA, and all new technology should be outlawed – and continue to complain about not being able to make a descent, proper living.
October 3rd, 2009 at 4:03 am
Correction to the above:
“soles” should have been “souls”
(Of course the labels wouldn’t have had any interest in buying their SHOES!)
October 3rd, 2009 at 8:22 am
Billy Bragg:
“The only way weâre going to change the way things are done is if artists and fans work together to build new models that give fans what they want and allow artists to earn a living from their recordings.”
You’re not GOING to make a living off your recordings, as long as you keep relying on this outdated label system. The big labels screw artists almost as badly as fans (I say “almost”, because they at least give the ILLUSION that they support the artists, whereas they constantly resort to browbeating and intimidating fans). Giving you a ton of money upfront, expecting you to pay for EVERYTHING to record your album, and then giving you 8 cents per album while they collect the lion’s share….that’s not right.
The labels need to make serious changes before they ever earn me back as a customer….but just as important (if not more so), they need to ADMIT that they’ve been WRONG. I’m sure there are many more who would agree.
October 3rd, 2009 at 10:52 am
@Bill Bragg: (if this is really you and not someone pretending…)
Sorry but you contradict yourself. As the people above have already stated, the items FAC supports and the requests FAC makes do not help keep the net open.
Whippie skippy you support Net Neutrality but at the same time you support the already proven inaccurate means of canceling someone’s internet connection.
You didn’t address that issue either. How easy is it to spoof an IP? Very easy, manually code your own IP packet, which is VERY easy to do, and pick a different source address.
You know how that is easy? Because the source code is out there, open and free, free to make copies and free to distribute and even free to modify.
People like that!
The moment you try to control things, people are not happy.
And while, as you say 20% of the people on the FAC list are unknown, they are not indie. They are on a sub-sub-sub label that is owned by one of the big 4. That’s how it works. And when you’re trying to “make it big” not make a living, but make it big, you’ll do whatever the label tells you.
Billy, do you honestly think you’ll get fans and customers and filesharers on your side just by saying “yeah, screw those labels” once in a while? You won’t! Sorry, we can see past that, especially when you support the labels as they push for draconian laws.
As stated literally a hundred times on this site, this is all about control. Filesharing takes control away from the labels who want to price fix, screw the customer/fan, screw the artists, but tell you they are bending over backwards for you, meanwhile they are raking in the cash and your “going out for a nice dinner” consists of Swiss Chalet.
Do you get me? Probably not.
FAC sounds more like a facade than anything else man. When you “shout at the label” you can’t give the “looks that kill” at filesharers! 3 strikes laws seem like “Dr Feelgood” to you, but they are “too fast for love” of fans.
Maybe you should read techdirt and try to understand infinite goods, aka copies of your music, then learn how to make finite goods, as I mentioned. Have a picnic, better yet, join a cyclocross club and invite fans (via twitter or facebook) to come and watch and even join the races for free. Then you can charge for picnics or small jam sessions. I’d pay $30 to jam for 3 hours with Matthew Good in a heart beat. Hell, I’d probably pay $100 for 3hr of jamming with Matthew Good.
You get it? See? And do you think Matthew Good, who’s on Universal Canada, would actually ever make $100 from me specifically in his lifetime? Nope. Though I’ve paid twice that between concerts and CD’s. Don’t even get me started on The Cure and how much I paid for their merchandise, from VHS to DVD to CD to 15+ cassettes to tShirts to Calenders to concerts to articles/magazines/tab books etc…
And with the $1000+ I’ve spent on The Cure, Robert Smith and Co have received less than $10 from me, probably less than $5.
Those items are now infinite goods! No money was ever made by them for the artist, only for the label. So you complaining that you need to stop filesharing to make a living is a contradiction, because you never made a living selling records. You made a living with musician for hire or merchandising or touring.
October 3rd, 2009 at 11:31 am
Devil’s Advocate,
You don’t see the FAC engaging with you? WTF do you think I’m doing here typing this post? Do you guys have a formal representation committee? No. Isn’t this where you discuss stuff? Isn’t this your forum? A month you’d never even heard of FAC, now here we are talking directly to one another. If we were any more engaged, I’d have to buy you a ring.
You’re wrong to think that artist haven’t got a say in this, because when the labels come after you, they do it our name. They rely on us to justify their behaviour. If we stand up and say, hey wait a minute, stop criminalising our fans, they are forced to defend their flawed analogue business models.
We don’t want to teach kids about the falsehoods of copyright, we want to find out if they are prepared to support the artists who make the music that they like. As for your life of copyright rant, tell me something I don’t know. Most artists don’t own their own copyrights. The labels own them.
Dev, I’m afraid I don’t share your black and white view of the world, where every musician is either a pure indie artists or the spawn of a satanic big label. There are plenty of people out there who do have it both ways, signed up to labels – not majors – who are open to exploring the digital record industry and at the same time giving stuff away for free.
Radial Skid,
I agree with everything you said. The reason I’m here is to explore ways that we as artists can win you back as customers. The great thing about the internet is that it allows us to talk to each other directly, without relying on edited media like music papers and radio and such. This has great potential for artists who want to do things their own way. How we manage this is still open for debate, but it is not helped by people who say that we should forget about making money from recordings and go away and sell t-shirts.
October 3rd, 2009 at 11:52 am
Robert, (if this is you and not someone pretending….)
I do get you. I know that file-sharing is about control. The major labels have controlled distribution for a hundred years and they’re not about to let go of the power to shape the market that easily. That’s why they won’t licence legal P2P unless they own it themselves. Thats why they don’t want an artists to break through without their patronage.
I haven’t heard of the concept of finite goods, or of Matthew Good for that matter, but you are absolutely right about artists needing to get out more. Kids are in the orchard stealing out apples, we should stop worrying about it and start making apple pie and cider to sell to them.
I guess the issue is, if you were sure that the artist was taking all the money, would you be prepared to buy their downloads?
Right now, most get around 10% of the dealer price of an i-tunes sale. If we owned our own rights, we could undercut i-tunes by 50% and still be making five times the money we are now. But to get to this place, we have to educate – sorry, that word again – new artists not to sign their rights away for an advance that they have to pay back. They won’t be willing to do this until they can see a clear example of how they can make a better living doing it for themselves. That’s where your community comes in. Until a band breaks big – has a top 40 radio hit – without a label, artists will remain in the clutches of the big labels. If we want to bust the big label cartel, then we – artists and fans – need to find that digital alternative career path in which artists are reliant only on their audience for financial support. We’ll have to move in a Matthew Good type direction, but you guys will have to move too, supporting those artists that are committed to take on the labels and win.
And Robert, it is me. Honest.
October 3rd, 2009 at 12:24 pm
I do buy downloads (not movies though because iTunes edits them – at least with Bad Lieutenant they did) but mostly I prefer the hard copy. But I will not spend $20 on the new U2 record to hear it and then think “well that was a waste of $20.” That’s what is changing, we don’t need to do that. I have many downloads that I would never purchase, regardless of labels or not. And I have many that I purchase because I want to support the artist (such as Matthew Good or The Cure), despite both being on major labels (Universal Canada and Geffen/Universal, respectively).
Infinite goods, copies of your recordings, can be distribute for free, so why should their be a price attached for copies? And why should the rights holders (should be you, but it’s a corporation, a legal entity without a soul) tell people what to do with the copies?
So think of it this way, you get paid to create, not get paid for copies which now are just 3-5MB of 1’s and 0’s, and most CPU’s running at 2GHz are able to pump out one instruction per clock cycle, do the math and you’ll see it won’t take long to create an identical copy. With only a few 30-50 million CPU clock cycles. No big deal.
The point is, customers are tired of the way it was and the new generations are used to “taping from radio”, aka downloading, and then they turn around and buy the CD’s and go to concerts. CD sales are down, but were they really up? Or were people using the new technology to replaces scratched vinyl and chewed up or stretched tapes? Yes! So there’s one bending in the stories in the papers.
Elton John’s against file sharing, well do you know how many more people have heard of Elton John because of his music being available for free?
Pardon the sidetracking.. I tend to speak in trees.
What I mean to focus on is, yes, if the customer has the ability to pay the artist what it is worth, sampling first for free, then they will! If the dont’ feel it is worth anything, they will download it, maybe listen at random, maybe decide “you know this song is actually good” and later pay to see the artist in concert! Or maybe they don’t enjoy it and think “wow, luckily I didn’t pay for this crap!”
People ARE willing to pay! Hollywood’s biggest customers are… P2P users! “Piracy is killing us” and yet every release they rake in a killing in profits!
And as others have said, your work Billy has to go into the public domain!
Why? Just like the net and classical music, the only reason people have heard of Mozart or Beethoven, is because their work is in the public domain. Anyone can play it! Playing it is sharing it and living it, what the artist intended!
So if your work was in the public domain and bar bands were playing it, guaranteed there’s going to be a few people who hear it and go “wow, who’s that song by? The one you’re butchering?” and the butcher replies “it’s Billy Bragg’s second track from his first album” “Oh cool.” So they download it, listen, then you come to town, and they go hear and see you, and maybe purchase your CD from YOU.
Then they are inspired to pick up a guitar or hop on a piano or drums or grab a saxophone and play! Now they are engaging people too. The Live experience is worth 10x the CD experience!
I never liked Led Zeppelin’s Communication Breakdown until Quinten played it on his Ibanez RG 550, through a Peavy head and Marshall half stack (upper half cab) and I was playing pool, then those riffs hit me in the chest! I was blown away. Then I learned to appreciate LZ’s Communication Breakdown.
If artists were not “protected” by the likes of the Sony Bono act, where after 7yrs your work was public domain, others would play, you’d hear about it, you’d want it, you’d buy it, you’d see them live! Then you would get money.
Seriously, Yngwie Malmsteen is only famous because of a) guitar magazines and b) guitarists TEACHING his music and sharing it (free)! Now you get neoclassical wannabee shredders buying Yngwie videos/CD’s/Concert tickets!
Of course the only hindrance to sharing is the likes of SOCAN wanting royalty fees for everything and anything! That prevents public performance, public spreading of the word! Imagine going to a diner, just a cheap diner, and hearing no music. They are being charged money by SOCAN in case they play someone in their library and what does the artist get? $160/yr at most! Yeah, they really help the artists! You could afford new guitar strings. Now imagine going to the same diner and some dude is playing an acoustic version of your songs? Wow huh? Exposure and then people want to know more about YOU!
The internet is simply a means to acquire it for free, there’s promotion but it’s difficult because it is flooded, the Net is flooded! You can’t see! It is so damn flooded with music, good and bad.
So if all music and art went public domain, you’d have promotion! Then you don’t need internet filters, your work would spread, people would hear about you through family and friends, not billboards. Would you spend $50 to jam on the piano with Billy Bragg because you saw him on a billboard or because you heard about him through: dude plays at local coffee house, friend brings you to hear B.Bragg music played there by dude, you are moved, B.Bragg comes to town, you see his performance and you’re moved even more, now you hear B. Bragg’s having a piano jam session after each concert, $50 for a few hours and maybe going out after for drinks with the other 15 lucky people who spent the $50!
Billy can you imagine 17 people (you, B. Bragg and 15 others) all banging on pianos and guitars and drums and wind instruments (no banging here please, these are delicate) and you’re playing boogie woogie, jazz, blues, rock and even 80’s glam metal as you laugh senselessly at payee #7 trying to scream out Living On A Prayer!
What better experience for the artist and fans? What better way to connect? What better way to rake in 16*50 or $800 after each show and have fun while doing it?
Damn, now I’m excited to do that, too bad no artist actually does that except for local musicians you know after they are done their sets of covers, paid a few dollars after their “royalty payments” go to the collection agencies to be distributed to the artists.
~Cheers dude, I have to head out to work at the bike store and maybe do some riding in prep for tomorrow’s race.
October 3rd, 2009 at 1:32 pm
@Billy:
1) “WTF do you think Iâm doing here typing this post?”
Yes, and your previous post was your first one here that I recall.
My comment was addressing the fact that, up until you finally made that comment, the FAC wasn’t “engaging” anyone “here”.
2) “Youâre wrong to think that artist havenât got a say in this…”
“Most artists donât own their own copyrights. The labels own them.”
I’d say the second statement outlines why the first one is misguided.
3) “…because when the labels come after you, they do it our name.”
Yeah. The labels come after file sharers, using the artists’ names as a FRONT.
How much of the Jammie Thomas’ 1.92 million-dollar settlement do you think will go to the artists?? (Assuming they even see a penny of that!)
4) “We donât want to teach kids about the falsehoods of copyright, we want to find out if they are prepared to support the artists who make the music that they like.”
And my point on this was that neither YOU nor the RIAA have ANY BUSINESS taking your case to the schools at all. “Prepared to support the artists”?? That one just stinks of “open to OUR 2 cents”.
NEWSFLASH FOR EVERYONE IN YOUR INDUSTRY:
Any “contributions” you intend to have incorporated into the school cirriculum cannot possibly be anything else but an attempt to prime the children’s thinking in your favour, from no other viewpoint but that of SALES.
You’re not proposing to teach them a “black and white” idea meant to protect them, such as “don’t talk to strangers”, “look both ways before crossing the street”, or “drugs kill”. You’re not proposing to teach them the “rights and wrongs of life” that we base our morals or legal system on, or how to improve their reading or math comprehension.
Your only possible purpose in approaching the kids would be to reinforce your industry’s propaganda (whether you even realize it or not) with such ideas as “file sharing is ILLEGAL” (it’s not), “file sharing is STEALING” (it’s not), or “sharing copyrighted material is a CRIME” (it’s not, it’s a civil infraction). Certainly, you want to go in and deliver the classic “file sharing is COMPLETELY DESTROYING MUSIC” public service message.
Any of you saying you’re just attempting to “help these kids develop a better understanding on these issues” or “give these kids a warm and fuzzy feeling about music so they’ll appreciate it and ’support’ it more willingly” are just insulting everyone’s intelligence. What’s really going on is, you figure the only way to keep the digital age from defeating a tired business model is to start training the kids to be more obedient consumers.
This mission is simply an act of INTERFERENCE, and should be deemed completely illegal. The music industry, including its artists, has no business in our classrooms. The facts of the matter are already taught to them, effectively and in a healthy, neutral manner, by something called a TEACHER. What the kids do with the thought processes they develop afterward is THEIR decision and not yours.
Instead of thinking you can “teach” the young to support/respect you, why don’t you think of the obvious?
If you appeal to the very things that drive them, they WILL grow up wanting to buy it!
And, you don’t need to get inside the classrooms to accomplish this.
5) “There are plenty of people out there who do have it both ways, signed up to labels â not majors â who are open to exploring the digital record industry and at the same time giving stuff away for free.”
NAME ONE!
And, then tell me how they could be truly signed up to any faucet of a label (thereby sacrificing the rights), and still give stuff away, without fear of reprisal from that label.
6) “This has great potential for artists who want to do things their own way. How we manage this is still open for debate, but it is not helped by people who say that we should forget about making money from recordings and go away and sell t-shirts.”
This is where you demonstrate that desire to keep a certain amount of the Status Quo.
- You still talk about your recordings as if they’re a physical product.
- You take the “offended” stance that, somehow we’re telling you, if you can’t sell recordings, all that’s left for you to do is sell paraphernalia like t-shirts. That’s just being deliberately obtuse.
Billy,
If the FAC is genuinely concerned with regaining the respect of the fans, you need to deliver a better message – one that is not riddled in contradictions. Either the old business model is dead to you, and the artists are all willing to embrace the current scenario and find the positives in it… Or, you intend to cling to some or all of the old model, and feel the need to establish “laws and controls” (and “youth education” by the looks of it) in order to preserve those parts of the Status Quo which have, clearly, already gotten away.
October 3rd, 2009 at 1:52 pm
If you’re still online, Billy, go here – http://www.p2pnet.net/story/29279 (especially “Iâd like to chat with you about an idea I have. If thatâs cool with you, please email at p2pnet @ shaw dot ca privately and in confidence telling me how I can contact you.”
Cheers!
October 3rd, 2009 at 2:31 pm
Robert,
I agree with much of what you say. Only problem is, everyone who has recorded so far has given their copyrights away for full term. Its going to be a real struggle to get them into the public domain before they expire – both copyright and artist.
Making money having fun? I’m all in favour of that.
Devil’s Advocate
1) Fair enough. However, FAC is only a few months old and until Jon began discussing my Guardian post, I didn’t know that you guys existed either. You appeared in my google search and, seeing that you were debating the FAC stance, I engaged. Is there any other way we could have been having this conversation today?
2) How is that wrong? They presume to speak for us. When we speak for ourselves they run for cover – or push other artists like Lily Allen to the fore so she can take all the flak for them. They worked out well didn’t it? What happened to her was a good example of the way your community can bring its voice to bear. Thanks to all the negative comments posted by P2P users, I doubt the labels will find another artist willing to publicly champion their stance for a long while.
3) And the example I cited above how quickly that strategy can backfire on them
4) You’ve misunderstood me. I’m not advocating going into schools at all. When I say education, I mean we need to educate P2P users AND artists via dialogue like this. Maybe my use of the word ‘kids’ was what gave you the wrong impression. Most of the people I know who use P2P are much younger than me and more internet savvy, hence ‘kids’. Apologies.
5) Name one? Billy Bragg. I’m signed to a label called Cooking Vinyl in the UK and to Anti here in the USA. On Monday, during the sound-check at The Great American Music Hall, I will record a brand new song called Constitution Hill which has never been made available and give it away for free on my website. How can I get away with that? Because I work with labels that have a better understanding of how the record industry benefits from the internet.
6) Listen, if I had a pound for every downloader who has told me to stop trying to make money from recorded music, I’d be rich. A musician who comes onto a file-sharing comment thread and opposes free downloading is likely to be told to stop whinging and sell more t-shirts.
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. 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.
October 3rd, 2009 at 2:47 pm
@ Billy:
“Until we can get a critical mass of artists to understand that the record industry doesnât 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.”
Exactly right.
I’d really appreciate a word or 10 with you about an idea I have. If thatâs cool with you, please email me at p2pnet @ shaw dot ca privately and in confidence telling me how I can contact you.
Cheers!
October 3rd, 2009 at 2:58 pm
@ Billy
PS –
“Youâve misunderstood me. Iâm not advocating going into schools at all. When I say education, I mean we need to educate P2P users AND artists via dialogue like this. Maybe my use of the word âkidsâ was what gave you the wrong impression. Most of the people I know who use P2P are much younger than me and more internet savvy, hence âkidsâ. Apologies.”
As a dad and a music lover, I’m relieved to see that.
Meanwhile, if this exchange isn’t a one-off, it’s very rare and tomorrow I’ll be doing a follow-up post based on it.
This is the way things will get sorted – musicians talking directly with the people who listen to their music.
Thanks, Billy.
Definitely stay tuned.
Cheers!
October 3rd, 2009 at 3:38 pm
PPS -
Billy says, “… we have an education event for fellow artists on Monday night.”
If you could be there, what would you say?
Cheers!
October 3rd, 2009 at 4:27 pm
Billy and Devil’s Advocate:
I’m an indie musician. I own all the rights to all the songs on my CDs, and always have. When people ask what label I’m on, I say “millions for caca” which is a label I made up.
I play out about twice a month, kind of limited due to an injury, and have a FT day job because it comes with health insurance for my kids.
I released my latest CD about a year ago. I financed almost all of it with a grant from the arts council in the county where I live.
I’ve got my own website and am on reverbnation, ourstage, myspace, Facebook, IAC, etc. My website and myspace have collectively gotten about 30,000 hits in the past 11 months. I’ve made about $300 in online song sales in the past year.
I’d like to keep creating in the studio. Because I don’t play out much, I don’t want to invest in T-shirts. How is either of your models going to do anything but cost me money to do my art now?
(Billy I remember meeting you at WMNF in Tampa where I used to work. We have the same birthday
)
October 3rd, 2009 at 4:47 pm
Billy, you’re fighting a losing battle. Instead of supporting the recording industry’s war on file sharing, you should support artists who create the music instead of the corporations who profit from someone elses work.
As a file sharer, I couldn’t care less if the big labels all go bankrupt. I do, however, support artists. I listen to many bands who are signed to major labels and although I enjoy their music, I don’t think they have any right to complain about “illegal” downloading. Did you ever borrow a tape from a friend when you were a kid? Did you ever create a mixed tape? If so, then you’re no better than any file sharer.
The only difference between the way we all SHARE music today and the way we SHARED music in the past is that the Internet has made it possible to share with more people. I’ll tell you what hasn’t changed though; the big labels are still fucking artists up the ass every chance they get. I really think a lot of you need to look at the big picture and figure out who’s really robbing you.
October 3rd, 2009 at 5:51 pm
Billy, sorry but you can’t say that “Our challenge is to keep the net open to people like yourself, so that they can continue to make music on their own terms.” and at the same time that P2P networks should be permanently monitored and sharers should see their connection throttled, if not worse. You’ll have to choose your side.
For me, it’s all done: I hate the mafiaa and the record companies because they threaten our basic freedoms, but this doesn’t mean I hate artists. In fact, I am willing to pay a fair price. For instance I have paid my LimeWire Pro whereas I could have downloaded a pirated copy for free. Why? Because LimeWire is a nice application, I could test their basic version, it’s open source, and at the end of the day I wanted to support them. I’m also willing to pay a fair price for the music, but not to the mafiaa. There are decent proposals for that, see http://www.globalpatronage.org/ please. This proposal hasn’t been tested yet but it’s definitely worth to take a look at. No Orwellian surveillance of P2P networks, no mass lawsuits, no money sent to throttle connections (which just wouldn’t work anyway), and real money to support artists.
October 3rd, 2009 at 7:10 pm
@Billy:
I have to say, I’m feeling better about you already.
I grilled you to no small extent, and you managed to address quite a bit of the issue, point-by-point, all the while keeping your cool by the looks of it. As many “here” should agree, that’s a far better representation than any of the labels’ shills have been willing to consider.
Since we’re all just getting acquainted now, and we’re talking, that does moot the point of not having talked before.
Judging by your understanding of the “Lily Allen Affair”, I think we’re actually on a similar plane about The Labels.
One thing I wasn’t quite clear on until now was that all the “FAC news” we were hearing involved more than just the FAC artists. Before we exchanged, I was under the impression it was solely the FAC participating in those discussions. I see now, I need to pay closer attention to what is coming from whom.
Like Jon, I’m somewhat relieved that the FAC wasn’t announcing some misguided mission into our classrooms. My thinking on that now is, perhaps “education” is not a suitable terminology to what you seem to want to accomplish. Is “dialogue” between artists and filesharers a needed thing?… Absolutely! Do these filesharers actually need to be educated on anything?… Not sure about that. What I am sure about is that your industry has very successfully managed to taint the relationship between the artists and the fans, mainly due to the position the fans and the artists where placed in all of it. This relationship needs to be repaired immediately!
I guess what doesn’t help either side is that there are still a shitload of artists out there that are going to bat for the labels, and feel some misplaced obligation to actively shun the entire filesharing community, and blaming them and all technology they legally possess and use for all their current problems. If at least part of the mission of the FAC is to restore the admiration and respect us fans want so desperately to feel for our artists again, they need to be genuinely promoting a reverse to this mass ostracization, and genuinely mean it when they do.
I honestly think that if the artist-fan relationship is restored, you won’t even need to “educate” anyone. It’s admiration and respect that gets you fans (read “paying customers”). As long as the fans are led to believe the artists are as much against them as the MAFIAA itself, they won’t buy anything, and will continue to download everything they can, if for no other reason that to just prove a point.
Credit where credit is due, I am pleased to, at long last, see an artist of your calibre willing to talk to “us” about all this stuff on a meaningful level. That makes me cautiously optimistic (which is a more positive feeling than I’ve had about the music industry in quite a while).
October 3rd, 2009 at 7:40 pm
@Billy (if you are who you say you are.. /shrug)
I’m going to assume you are smart enough to realise that the people posting on sites like this are not typical and can be taken as an average file sharer. The proposals put forward are going to do nothing at all to stop persistent filesharers, but will do plenty to cause bad press and resentment to a much wider audience.
Most filesharers will simply start using a VPN/seedbox and continue as normal, one thing to consider is the moeny for that seedbox is going to be coming directly out of each persons disposable income that would have been spent on media consumption… I know I sure as hell won’t be skipping a pack of beer to pay for a seedbox, it will come out of the money that would have bought a dvd. Nice shot to the foot right there guys.
Now on a brighter note, most people are fundamentally honest and do actually pay for goods you are trying to sell them. Mostly. Take for example myself this last week or so, I watched the “Dear Lily” video by Dan Bull, I followed to his little homepage and found his album for download. Now its not a genre I normally listen to, but I grabbed it and had a listen. I can say I would never ever in a month of sundays buy it in a store, Its not my thing at all. But I did appreciate his honesty and the opportunity to donate what I feel its worth to me. Dan Bull will be getting 2 or 3 quid from me, I don’t feel its worth more than that to myself, others hopefully do.
The thing to note here is that he put it out there, hopefully people are going to give something back, he comes across as a smart guy who speaks a lot of sense and I can respect that, I also respect and respond to people putting their trust in me, I will donate something back. Will I ever donate to anything the big four do… the way I feel right now, no not ever. They can change that though, but many people already feel that they have done so much harm they deserve nothing more than to die out. Consumers have the money, as artists you really want to consider which side you chose to stand on this fight.
Trust your customers, use the web, sell direct. Build a relationship with consumers and prosper.
There is no doubt a bajillion holes in what I have written, I am tired but I think my meaning is clear. Gives us a chance to pay what we think is fair, you may be surprised. Remember that many many many programming projects and websites survive on donations from people using the service supplied for free.
October 3rd, 2009 at 10:58 pm
Drake,
Some artists are well aware that it is the labels who are robbing us. New bands are being asked to sign contracts which still have mandatory packaging deductions – for mp3 sales, fer Chrisakes! Why do they do it? Because they don’t know any better. That’s why we need to educate – not just a dialogue, a whole programme of outreach events showing artists like Maggie how they can make a fair living making music.
Reader’s Write,
It’s just not as simple as choosing sides. In order to change attitudes, we have to engage with the labels and unfortunately for us, last week it was on their terms. The trouble began with an interview members of the FAC board,including myself gave to the Times newspaper. You can read it here:
http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/music/article6828262.ece
The majors went ballistic and used all their various media channels to portray the FAC as pro-pirate, anti-artist commies. That severely undermined our position with fellow artists. The labels spent the week attempting to pressurise us into signing up to a statement calling for suspension of internet access as a final resort, continually accusing us of being in support of illegal file-sharing. When we refused to sign up, Lily Allen’s blogs began appearing. Not only was she attacking our stance, she was actively rallying artists against us – or rather, her management and label were. James Blunt the first big name to back her, shares management, as does her other big supporter, Elton John. Other artists posted on her site, thinking it was a debating forum rather than a highly focussed PR campaign.
In order to not be completely marginalised by the labels, we had to make it clear to other artists that we were not pro-pirate, that we wanted the websites that make money giving our music away to be closed down, but that we believed P2P was a good means of promotion. This nuanced argument got lost in the media shit-storm and more and more artists were implicitly signing up to suspension via Lily’s campaign.
We called a crisis meeting, inviting every artist we knew, including Lily, to come along to see if we could thrash out a clear position for all artists involved in this debate. She turned up and the position that we agreed on – bandwidth squeezing – was a compromise, I admit, but crucially, it was not a vote in favour of the record industry position of suspension. You people in the P2P community are pissed off with us, but, trust me, the major labels are more pissed off. They had promised the government that their would be no opposition to suspension. Not only did they fail to bring us into line, but their spokeswoman says she’ll never make another record again. That is a very heavy price to pay. I don’t think any other young artists will be willing to ’shill’ for them again any time soon.
It was strongly expressed by the attendees at the meeting that the statement should not be seen as coming from the FAC and we accepted that. The press however has put us in a vanguard role in the debate, although we are simply facilitating discussions between artists, fans, file-sharers, labels, ISP and government. Hence my presence here.
cqb,
There are indeed holes in what you’ve written, but at least we’re talking. Hopefully we can educate each other and find that common ground that helps Maggie to find the customers she seeks.
October 4th, 2009 at 1:34 pm
so Billy, like, how long ago did you sell all your copyrights to the labels? was it less than 8 years ago? The RIAA began their ’sue em all’ campaign’ going on 7 or 8 years now, and if you knew about their tactics already, why did you sell your copyrights away?
see, over the ages, the kartels have squeezed billions from the customers in the name of greed, now the internet replaced ( I do mean past tense) their distribution model, and they are not able to squeeze the sheeple any more. it stands to calculate that they have presented sufficient content/profit margin, even on the Milli Vanill’s they spit out, to satiate the most voracious appetite, yet they plunder on…
while filesharing is not illegal (for the umpteenth time) it a civil infraction that can be litigated in a CIVIL court, for recompense, and while you may think that file sharing is amoral, it aint going anywhere, ever. I file share, I also write software, lots of it, and there is probably 80% of people that use my software that didnt pay for it, but you know what, I make money by writing more software, mebbe you get it, mebbe you dont, but I live very comfortably… mebbe you should try it, working, I mean…
whats really funny is that BPI, or IFPI, or whatever useless organization, thinks that 7 million brits are file sharing ‘criminals’.. that number isn’t that far off, now extend that globally, and multiply to 4.
Jack Valenti would roll over in his grave if he really knew how deep file sharing goes…, we started organizing 6 years ago, hello?!
I am impressed, however that yet another misguided mouthpiece actually has the cojones to go toe-to-toe with Henry. Keep up the good work Bill, you are bound to convince someone, some of us however, are gone for good.
Hang out, I bet you learn something you didn’t know while reading P2PNet..
stw
October 4th, 2009 at 6:56 pm
Thanks for the answer Billy. This discussion should have started years ago, but at least it’s finally happening. The biggest problem is, IMHO, the labels. I’m not sure at all that you can change their minds by discussing with them, they lost billions of dollars yet they still refuse to adapt, so I think the sooner they die the better for all of us. Having to deal with them is like carrying dead weight while trying to run. As for me, I refuse to buy anything that can provide income to the mafiaa, they’ve gone way too far.
“But their spokeswoman says sheâll never make another record again. That is a very heavy price to pay. I donât think any other young artists will be willing to âshillâ for them again any time soon.”
Come on, if her new career doesn’t work she’ll just record something new and tell some PR BS like “I really wanted to get in touch with my fans again” — and if her album doesn’t sell well, she’ll blame P2P. It’s not as if she hadn’t already made contradicting statements. But you’re right, finding someone as clueless as her to play the spokesperson for the mafiaa may indeed be difficult.
“We called a crisis meeting, inviting every artist we knew, including Lily, to come along to see if we could thrash out a clear position for all artists involved in this debate. She turned up and the position that we agreed on â bandwidth squeezing â was a compromise, I admit, but crucially, it was not a vote in favour of the record industry position of suspension. You people in the P2P community are pissed off with us, but, trust me, the major labels are more pissed off.”
I think I get your point, however this definitely shows that there are many artists who need to get rid of the label BS and start to think differently. There’s no point in sinking with the labels which are doomed anyway. Radiohead, Nine Inch Nails, Smashin Pumpkins should serve as examples… What you did seems to be positive, let’s hope things will get better. I’ll bookmark FAC’s website and keep an eye on it.
October 4th, 2009 at 7:25 pm
Billy, the moment you joined FAC you immediately became the enemy of the P2P community. By supporting the silly 3 strike rule which either disconnects or slows down ALLEGED copyright violators you have shown that you’re just as irrational as the criminals who run the big labels. In my opinion, it will be very difficult to debate this issue with you since you seem to equate copyright infringement with theft and support the recording industry’s crusade against file sharers.
In addition to believing that you are irrational, I also believe that you don’t deserve our respect. Since you want to go after file sharers I encourage your fans to boycott you and stop buying your CD’s and other merchandise until you stop supporting drastic action actions file sharers. Sadly, I don’t have the influence to kick-start such a boycott but I think a lot of file sharers will agree that the actions you are taking are counterproductive and definitely a step backwards.
I sincerely hope that this backfires on you.
October 5th, 2009 at 12:18 am
Drake,
Thanks for you post. If I’d have known you were out there waiting to be both judge, jury and executioner for the P2P community, I could have saved myself three days of honest debate. Glad to see that you have such a clear view of the world and how things are.
And you think I’m the irrational one???? Sheesh.
Surfer,
I actually own my copyrights, only licensing them to labels for a set period, usually 7 years. I have to take a smaller advance, but I get my stuff back. Part of our FAC education programme with fellow artists is to open their eyes to the licensing option. We are campaigning to make life of copyright assignment illegal in the EU, as it is in Germany, where they only license stuff to labels.
October 5th, 2009 at 4:03 am
“Thanks for you post. If Iâd have known you were out there waiting to be both judge, jury and executioner for the P2P community, I could have saved myself three days of honest debate.”
Please do not take Drakes views as typical, I think I can safely say that most people are pleased that someone who might actually have some weight to pull is actually trying to find out what makes a filesharer tick so to speak, and we can work out a common ground, end of the day we are simple members of the public and are not unreasonable as a whole.
Oh, and Dan Bull did get his donation from me for his free album and Dear Lily track, just for the record, no pun intended
I *want* to pay for stuff I use, but I can’t afford to pay the RRP sometimes. Be assured however that I do pay for what I really like, flipping heck, I have a couple of movies that I had purchased legally on VHS and later on DVD, this is despite having downloaded and watched it in cam, TS and then DVDRip… I like it, I try and buy it. I have at last count 250 or so DVD’s, almost every single one I had downloaded previously. All my friends are much the same, we all download things, but we equally all buy them also.
Now someone is going to jump up and say, “well if you can’t afford it, then you shouldn’t have it.”
There is no argument from me, there is no justification. Its a case of “I can, so I will.” But I do balance things back out buy paying for what is worth paying for after the fact. Filesharing didn’t make thieves out of most of us, it made us able to be more selective. I think I’m fairly typical.
October 5th, 2009 at 11:38 am
“Now someone is going to jump up and say, âwell if you canât afford it, then you shouldnât have it.â
A file can be copied, this causes no direct harm to the right owners if you couldn’t pay for it anyway. It’s not like you were depriving him from a material good, so I see nothing wrong with downloading something you cannot pay. Files are nonrival goods and this changes everything. It’s Bill Gates himself who once stated that he preferred the Chinese pirate Word instead of using other stuff so that they can pay later. Labels still don’t get that.
“By supporting the silly 3 strike rule which either disconnects or slows down ALLEGED copyright violators you have shown that youâre just as irrational as the criminals who run the big labels.”
Drake, read his previous posts please. I hate the idea of throttling connections of alleged copywrong violators, but even that was a setback for the labels who also hate the idea but for different reasons. Look at what’s happening in France (where it may well be plain and simple disconnection with heavy fines). In order to prevail in a struggle you should correctly identify your enemies in the first place, which are labels, not artists.
October 5th, 2009 at 6:10 pm
cqb,
Don’t worry, I’ve had much worse thrown at me in this debate. Weekend before last, I was trying to engage the P2Pers at torrentfreak is this same debate.
They reacted by accusing me of coming from the Matrix and refused to speak with me. In such situations, I find a sense of humour mixed with a bit of sarcasm helps move the debate along.
I’ll be continuing this debate over on Jon’s We Are the Walrus thread. Thanks to everyone who posted here. We just may have started something revolutionary.
Salut
October 5th, 2009 at 7:08 pm
@ Billy and Drake:
Billy – “We just may have started something revolutionary.”
A genuine, no-holds-barred discussion between musicians and people who like music can’t be anything but good.
Drake – We’ve virtually known each other for a long time and believe me, I wouldn’t be committing myself like this unless I honestly thought it could make a significant and positive difference.
Cheers!
October 5th, 2009 at 9:50 pm
Billy, you’re welcome. Any time.
But seriously, you support degrading a file sharers connection to the point that it’s unusable and then come here to debate? That’s like me coming here saying that I will hack iTunes until the end of time so that artists aren’t able to profit from their music. Your group is in a position of power, we’re not. You guys have the funds to lobby politicians in order to craft new laws. We don’t. So please don’t come at me with this bullshit that I want to be the judge, jury and executioner for the P2P community.
Jon, you know I respect what you do but I don’t have the same faith in these people. Good luck in trying to work with people like Billy.
October 5th, 2009 at 9:52 pm
Ah, dammit Jon why can’t I edit comments! I left out the part when I was making the iTunes comparison. The full sentence should have read – Thatâs like me coming here saying that I will hack iTunes until the end of time so that artists arenât able to profit from their music and then asking you how we can do a better job working together WHILE I’m hacking iTunes.