Dear music lovers …
p2pnet news view | P2P | Music:- Music should be something everyone can enjoy, not a battleground.
With that in mind, Billy Bragg and I had a long, really interesting and, we think, very fruitful conversation yesterday evening.
We were in complete accord on four vital aspects of music in the digital 21st century:
1 – Creators want, and need, to be paid for their work, and we, as music lovers, want to pay them.
2 – Trying to use technical sanctions to solve the ‘pirate’ problem won’t work — no way, no how.
3 – We need to start talking, and keep on talking, until we’ve found ways to resolve the various issues that’ve been keeping us apart.
4 – We need a space on the net where everyone can get together and work things through intelligently, and without acrimony.
With that in mind, we’ve decided to draw up a joint statement, signed by us both in an individual capacity, setting out our positions, and framing the debate we hope to have.
We’ll ask others to sign up as individuals, or sites.
And between, us we’ll launch a new blog where we can all meet to discuss issues and suggest solutions.
P2P.
People to People.
For anyone who’s just arrived, see »»»
- Billy Bragg solves the file sharing problem
- Yeh, Billy Bragg, but what about the indies?
- Billy Bragg to p2pnet …
- We are the walrus. Or, thank you Lily Allen
- ‘Just some stuff to think about, Billy’
- Walruses and sock puppets
And stay tuned. 
Jon Newton – p2pnet
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.
October 7th, 2009 at 9:46 am
I was one of the people who emailed Jon saying as a Brit, I thought that believing Billy Bragg was a mistake. But I’m now saying that I agree with Henry and that this is starting to look promising.
Fingers crossed.
October 7th, 2009 at 11:16 am
” I was one of the people who emailed Jon saying as a Brit, I thought that believing Billy Bragg was a mistake. ”
Still on the fence.
I still see too much of ‘ saying one thing and voting for another’ to be entirely
comfortable.
Time will tell.
October 7th, 2009 at 11:21 am
Hey Dredd:
We’re not voting. We’re doing.
Cheers!
October 7th, 2009 at 11:24 am
I’m watching developments with interest.
October 7th, 2009 at 11:27 am
“Creators want, and need, to be paid for their work, and we, as music lovers, want to pay them.”
Of course the restriction is the “give me all the rights if you want to make money” middlemen, be it a record company, music publisher or performance rights organization.
Until the restrictions are gone, artist will not be paid. Correcting that is step 1.
October 7th, 2009 at 11:30 am
Jon here is the issue that I can’t see how to resolve. Any plan that involves giving money to the RIAA is going to get a thumbs down from most p2p users. We want to pay musicians, but NOT finance an organization that is not only suing music fans but has opposed almost every type of new recordable tech to come along. So lets say some plan is proposed that cuts the RIAA leeches completely out of the picture. The problem with that is guys like Billy Bragg are locked into contracts with the RIAA, so until that contract expires, they would not be able to take advantage of any new payment plan. There are also some musicians who are happy with the RIAA, if they are already living in a huge mansion and rolling in money, they are not going to want to go for a new, untested payment plan. What I can see happening is an alternate plan which new musicians could use instead of signing with the RIAA, and if it worked well, musicians who’s contracts expired with the RIAA could opt into. It would have to be voluntary, as there is no way you are getting the U.S., Canadian, or any other countries politicians to vote for any payment plan that pushes the RIAA out of the picture. The RIAA funnels too much money into their pockets for that to happen.
October 7th, 2009 at 11:31 am
Additionally, as Crosbie will say, we want to pay them for their work. Not infinitely reproducible digital copies of their work. Artists getting paid doesn’t mean per-play, per-stream, or per-download charges. I’m looking forward to this new site where, hopefully, we can talk about real business models that will actually work in the 21st century instead of retooled versions of the record store.
October 7th, 2009 at 11:37 am
The one thing that really needs to be sorted out in this mess, is to “give people a reason to buy” as Mike Masnick of TechDirt often says – and I think he’s absolutely right.
Otherwise, you can picture the hypothetical situation, where file sharing has been stamped out and no-one wants to buy the corporate “products”. They can’t sue you into *buying* their crap now, can they?! (mocking laugh)
October 7th, 2009 at 11:42 am
“I’m looking forward to this new site where, hopefully, we can talk about real business models that will actually work in the 21st century instead of retooled versions of the record store.”
That’s the plan. And we won’t be relying on lamescream media stories. We’ll be talking with the music-makers themselves, one-on-one.
I can see what will amount to a very powerful fans-and-artists movement with, ultimately, music makers posting samples, and links to their own download sites, and fans giving musicians (invaluable) direct feedback.
Middlemen, which is all the labels are? Forget ‘em. And forget ‘corporate’.
It could, and should, be a lot of fun for everyone, and highly educational.
Cheers!
October 7th, 2009 at 11:58 am
@Jon:
Can we, with the help of being constructive and highly reduced attacking frequency, encourage other artists to join in this debate? I’m sure more than just Billy Bragg are interested in working with us instead of against us?
October 7th, 2009 at 12:08 pm
Indeed. I’d love to hear from artists like Amanda Palmer, Trent Reznor, or the Smashing Pumpkins, all who have given music away for free.
October 7th, 2009 at 12:14 pm
@ Robert and SteelWolf
The idea is to get independently minded people from all sides and at all levels talking freely with each other with the ultimate goal of arriving at consensus.
Cheers!
PS – A I said here http://www.p2pnet.net/story/29275 “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.”
October 7th, 2009 at 12:31 pm
How will you keep the RIAA/BPI trolls, shills from disrupting and causing havoc, just as they often do here?
Will there be the same type of anonymous posting allowed, and no registration required, just like here?
Billy and FAC are concerned with UK artists, UK proposals, and UK government legislations. It doesn’t matter if any FAC members are also paid by the RIAA – non-UK artists aren’t directly affected by UK proposals, and UK government legislations.
October 7th, 2009 at 12:39 pm
Billy Bragg and/or FAC claim that music sales are decreasing. We know this is pure ka-ka. Jon knows this as extreme bovine excretion. Sales have never ever been better. The same with DVD sales. The only thing decreasing (financially) are the royalties paid to the artists. So the problem is really only between the artist and the cartels and has absolutely nothing to do with the customer.
If there’s a way to untie the artists from the cartels’ umbilical cords, so that customers can pay the artists however much they want, when they want, and pay the cartels nothing, I would go for that. But I will never stop downloading for free and I will never be forced into paying for something I don’t like.
October 7th, 2009 at 12:40 pm
^^ On your first point, probably, people will expected to register if they want to to post.
As to anonymity, that’s an interesting question. Obviously, it’ll be far better if people say who they are.
On the FAC / UK aspect, we talked about that and it’s one of the reasons Billy and I will be on the new site as individuals rather than as Billy Bragg FAC member, and Jon Newton, p2pnet guy. We’ll make sure the site is international.
Cheers!
October 7th, 2009 at 12:56 pm
Then how about one registration per IP address so that any known or apparent RIAA/BPI trolls and shill can be banned, or at least disallowed from posting, when they start trouble.
October 7th, 2009 at 12:58 pm
listen you yourselves, you are falling over each other in an attempt to please this Billy Brag character, this is absolutely hilarious. as if BB could actually do something about the RIAA suing everyone alive, going after ISPs, and anyone else not lining their pockets.
whats to be done? if you file share, lock your shit down, and no worries from the parasites @ MAFIAA, no dialog, no petition to sign, no educated banter, file sharing aint going anywhere.
I got alot of respect for you Jon, and your board, but even YOU are acting like a new bride with a million dollars.. you aren’t going to dent sociological trends concerning file sharing with just ONE sock puppet, cmon be realistic.
Billy, you want to help, fine, disban FAC, IFPI, BMI, RIAA, MPAA, and all the other fucking asshat oligarcic funded witch-hunters, and figure out a new business model where the customer is right, and mebbe, just MEBBE a few will return to spending money on entertainment.
the days of the billions are over my friend, you and the witch-hunters need to realize that.
October 7th, 2009 at 1:07 pm
That’s right, surfer. I am witchoo.
We’ve always said here the customer is always right. ALWAYS!
Is this Problem-Reaction-Solution?
or No Problem-Reaction-Solution?
Fuck all the cartels and lobbyists, because the FAC is – or will become – a lobbying group, with all that that means – bribes, favours, etc.
October 7th, 2009 at 1:17 pm
@ surfer
Who’s talking about the RIAA? That’s just a no-account hit organisation. Just like the CRIA, BPI, IFPI. Etc and so on. They’re already marginalised (only the lamescream media and Obushma administration haven’t figured that out) to the extent their influence is now almost non-existent. They no longer feature.
Meanwhile, file sharing is file sharing. It’s part of the net, and always will be. But there’s also plenty of side-by-side room for people who want to pay for their downloads — maybe after they’ve test-listened via one of the visible or invisible download networks.
That’d be me.
Cheers!
October 7th, 2009 at 1:28 pm
@Surfer/RW:
I wouldn’t say people are falling over themselves just because they choose to chat with BB. In fact, most posts are pretty much as yours is, “screw FAC/RIAA/etc… we don’t need that here” where as Jon and Billy are hoping to try to come to a common ground.
What’s to be done? A lot. Right now you won’t give a dime to anyone who’s connected or was connected with any organization that has once (even a little bit) supported the views or even one viewpoint that opposes P2P.
How will that attitude help new artists? They will realize something very quick, P2P file sharers are not going to care about them and won’t donate to them or support any new business model because it is probably some corporate shill’s idea and we’re being snowed by the shills.
So they won’t change either and would rather, as Billy Bragg explained, compromise with the labels than with the bitter file sharing community who won’t listen to the sides of the artists. Billy has tried to explain that they are not 100% pro-label and they are not 100% pro-file sharer.
They are trying to educate new artists and old artists alike. That’s not easy when your income is controlled by corporations who undoubtedly have infiltrated FAC and are trying to sway things in their favour.
Billy has at least agreed to work out a means for artists to still get paid and p2p to remain alive. Yes FAC has endorsed some ideas from the labels, but when feed knowledge from only the labels and seeing how much hostility there is here on this site from p2p-ers, well who can blame them?
The point is we’re trying to educate Billy Bragg and listen to what his ideas are, and work together so we can keep p2p and still pay artists, without some stupid tax grab that the labels are pushing for and of course won’t go down without a serious fight.
The labels have many FAC members are held by the shorts and curlies!
I’m surprised Billy has lasted this long given the heat he has taken from people like you guys and Dred and DA and Henry. All of you have really smacked him around and he’s still here and still trying to work out a solution.
Why? What’s the point? The labels will fight tooth and nail… yes they will, but we can create replacements! A new system where new artists can sign into instead of with labels, where fans can support their artists they want (not the labels) and other artists can do what NIN did, finish the contract and never sign up for that crap again, opting for the new system instead.
If we don’t work together to create a new system, how will anything change?
“It’s only a matter of time before the labels fall…” yes and what next? What if we were able to create a system and have it in place BEFORE the labels are gone for good, won’t that help expedite the death of the greedy labels? Won’t that provide something as proof positive to counter the horrible claims of the labels which we can sell to politicians?
What good is money from labels if no one will vote for you? Votes matter more than campaign funds! And if the politicians see the bullshit the labels are feeding them, and see the new system and how it works really well generated by the fans and the artists, and see what the voters want, what do you think they will choose?
Moving forward is better than idling!
October 7th, 2009 at 1:45 pm
I hope the results of this are fruitful. However, I hate that point one is explicitly about money.
When the focus is on money, it defines the artist/fan relationship as commercial. And music fans will have none of that. That doesn’t mean music fans won’t spend (alot) of money on music, they will. The focus should be on how to build relationships with fans and how to provide them opportunities to financial support their favorite artists. Not on how to ensure that fans pay up.
As we have seen with some artists, when they build relationships based on trust (give music away free and provide a variety of ways for fans to financially support the artist) the results are good for fans and artist (assuming the music is good).
Worrying about piracy, licensing, etc. expecting/demanding fans pay before they receive anything when the reproduction and distribution of digital files is effectively free is not a way to build a good long term relationship. Assuming everyone, or most people, are out to screw over the artist is not a good way to build a long term relationship.
I really don’t know what it says about these blow hard artists when they are so concerned about the fans ’stealing’ from them when the record companies have been stealing from the artists and fans for decades and artists have said and done nothing.
October 7th, 2009 at 1:47 pm
good luck getting customers back to paying for music, even with a new system, after the RIAA is done bitch-slapping people around.
I used to pay for music, I couldnt count how many copies of Pink Floyd The Wall I purchased in my time.. but now.?
I wouldnt pay for music if the shit was 1¢ per song, BECAUSE of the RIAA’s tactics, directly, and immediately related to said reason.
good luck with the new system, but you are never gonna get my money, ever again.
October 7th, 2009 at 1:48 pm
But there’s also plenty of side-by-side room for people who want to pay for their downloads — maybe after they’ve test-listened via one of the visible or invisible download networks.
That’s what scares me. Models built around getting people to pay for digital files just won’t work in the long term. Everybody realizes digital copies of things are worthless and freely tradable. It’s the same kind of retooled record store idea that seems to be the only way industry representatives can see of coexisting with filesharing.
What they don’t understand is that they have no ace in the hole. There is no alternative where they stop filesharing and things go back to the way they were. Filesharing is here to stay, digital files will traded for free. This is the new reality, the new baseline. Accept it and move on. Honestly, there’s no magical thing to be set up that gets artists more money. The music industry is GROWING – the plastic disc industry is what’s dying. Artists need to figure out how they can make money from giving people something they actually want to spend money on – not by “monetizing” filesharing.
October 7th, 2009 at 1:49 pm
” The point is we’re trying to educate Billy Bragg and listen to what his ideas are, and work together so we can keep p2p and still pay artists, without some stupid tax grab that the labels are pushing for and of course won’t go down without a serious fight. ”
I’m not sure BB wants to be ‘educated’ or can be.
” Billy, you want to help, fine, disban FAC, IFPI, BMI, RIAA, MPAA, and all the other fucking asshat oligarcic funded witch-hunters, and figure out a new business model where the customer is right, and mebbe, just MEBBE a few will return to spending money on entertainment.”
Much much of this.
As I said, time will tell.
I’ll be there.
October 7th, 2009 at 1:50 pm
@surfer:
I wouldn’t pay for digital files if they were 1¢ a song, but I love paying for music. I spend a good portion of what little income I have on concert tickets, tshirts and other things related to my favorite artists that I actually want. The sooner we can let go of the idea that digital copies are worth something, the better.
October 7th, 2009 at 1:51 pm
@ rjk
“I hate that point one is explicitly about money.”
It isn’t about money. It’s about fair payment for value received.
cheers!
October 7th, 2009 at 1:54 pm
@rjk, etc.:
That’s another thing about the money focus. What are people like Bragg actually looking for when they say that? Do they mean they want to make a living like the rest of us, or are they talking about raking in millions every year?
October 7th, 2009 at 2:00 pm
@surfer
I share your skepticism, believe me.
I do think at the very least, Jon has the right idea, and BB does seem to have the stones
to stick it out.
Notable, yet odd …..
BB told us he did vote for sanctions, although I find his reasons for doing so to be
‘odd’ at the very least, he did that knowing that it would foster suspicion and animosity.
He’s pretty much taken every shot thrown at him with what appears to be honesty, though
I still wish he’d leave veiled insulting rhetoric behind.
If he turns out to be phony, it’s worth the potential benefit to find out.
October 7th, 2009 at 2:02 pm
Someone has to dip their toe in the water.
It just takes one artist to begin to doubt the veracity of industry propaganda that the audience is their enemy.
It only take one artist to bypass the trolls’ bridge, step into the stream, reach out and discover that their audience on the other side is not only a handshake away, but as friendly and hospitable as can be – not the alleged hordes of ravenous wolves that require the strength of umpteen armoured trolls to subjugate.
After the first artist comes back unscathed, there will be more to follow, more to deal directly rather than via what they discover are quite extortionate trolls.
One cannot say the trolls will not be happy, because they never are. They will be furious. They will threaten artists with ostracism, denying them access to all channels they control, to any who dare disintermediate them. There will then of course be those who wish to placate the trolls and their traditional role as cultural midwives.
It’s not at all clear what’s going to happen in the interesting times between now and when we all live happily ever after.
October 7th, 2009 at 2:06 pm
It isn’t about money. It’s about fair payment for value received.
I think most music fans are doing that already. People are spending more money on music – just not on plastic discs. Now artists just have to find a way to make sure that money is going to them, for their work, instead of toward some CEO’s next Learjet.
October 7th, 2009 at 2:07 pm
@ Crosbie.
Exactly. Thanks.
Cheers!
October 7th, 2009 at 2:07 pm
If he turns out to be phony, it’s worth the potential benefit to find out.
Absolutely.
October 7th, 2009 at 2:17 pm
As I said somewhere else, if this turns out to be nothing but a phk-up, I’ll admit it in Big Black Letters.
But I don’t think I’ll have to do that. I’ve now spoken to Bragg twice, the second time at length, and I believe he means what he says — that everything is totally screwed up the way it is and that if we work together and trust each other, we can make things better.
I’ve been complaining and criticising for years. Now I have a chance to actually become part of the solution, and I can hardly wait …
If there’s one thing I’ve learned, if you’re not willing to take risks to achieve what you want to achieve, you might as well quit.
Or maybe team up with Vivendi Universal, EMI, Warner Music and Sony Music.
Cheers!
October 7th, 2009 at 2:25 pm
Where is this new message board going to be? On the FAC website, or on a back page somewhere on p2pnet?
If the FAC is truly interested in talking to their meal tickets, have them host the forum on their own pages.
Total transparency.
October 7th, 2009 at 2:26 pm
—1 – Creators want, and need, to be paid for their work, and we, as music lovers, want to pay them. —
File sharers like to share music with each other for FREE. This is how we discover new music. I have no problem with paying artists a fair amount of money for their work but I will only support this if artists support free file sharing.
—2 – Trying to use technical sanctions to solve the ‘pirate’ problem won’t work — no way, no how.—
Does Billy’s opinion change with the wind? In this article – http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/sep/30/internet-pirates-illegal-filesharing – from Sept 30, he states, “Despite our differences of opinion, we were able to agree on bandwidth restriction as final sanction for egregious offenders.”
—3 – We need to start talking, and keep on talking, until we’ve found ways to resolve the various issues that’ve been keeping us apart.—
We need to first resolve issue # 1. File sharing is about sharing information for free. If they can not accept that and build a system to compliment free file sharing I don’t see how this can move forward.
—4 – We need a space on the net where everyone can get together and work things through intelligently, and without acrimony.—
There will always be acrimony as long as his side continues to lobby crooked politicians to go after file sharers. Talk is cheap. I judge people based on their actions, not on what they say.
October 7th, 2009 at 2:44 pm
Who’s going to pay for the website?
John, you always say you can barely make ends meet.
You, Billy Bragg or the FAC paying for it would be a conflict of interest.
Could it be your anonymous benefactor? If so, reveal the name now.
October 7th, 2009 at 2:46 pm
@ RW
“Where is this new message board going to be? On the FAC website, or on a back page somewhere on p2pnet?”
It won’t have anything to do with FAC or p2pnet. That’s why Billy and I are emphasising we’re putting it together as individuals
It’ll be a brand new, totally unique, blog.
At this point, we don’t even have a name, we don’t know who who’ll host it, where it’ll be, or anything else. But it’ll be international — and just as importantly, exciting, and a lot of fun, not doom and gloom, as it is with the corporate music industry.
@ “Who’s going to pay for the website?”
It needn’t be expensive for starters. Launching a new blog costs only a few dollars per month and I’m sure it’ll be no trouble at all to raise the wherewithall from scrupulously clean sources.
Cheers!
October 7th, 2009 at 3:10 pm
All I can say is “Wow”..
This is *exactly* what is needed, artist/s working directly with a corner of the filesharing community to find a solution to the mexican stand off we have had. The *AA isn’t ever going to go away on its own accord I think its pretty clear, but if the artists find a better way to get their music out then the *AA will just evaporate and die.
I will not ever buy music from the Big4, but I absolutely will support artists I like that realise their mistakes in backing that particular horse and choose to support their customers by getting out from under the big4/*AA
@Jon & Billy
Go for it, lets move on and find a common ground, we can do this because if we don’t the alternative is more horrible years of prolonged fighting the *AA.
October 7th, 2009 at 3:10 pm
Many dubious efforts on the part of the Music Industry are described as ‘initiatives’, but they never are.
However, I would without the slightest hesitation describe this as a genuinely new and innovative step, and you will find support for it in quarters that may surprise you.
Mark – a long-time P2PNet reader, but infrequent poster.
October 7th, 2009 at 3:54 pm
Or Scottish Reel.
October 7th, 2009 at 4:01 pm
in case you didnt see it, from Crosbie – http://www.p2pnet.net/story/29272
By diluting the market with cheaply (zero) priced copies, file-sharing prevents the producers of copies from selling copies at high prices. Obviously, publishers are going to kid artists that only the publishers can pay them, and that they can only pay them if they can sell copies at monopoly protected prices.
Artists (just as publishers) aren’t going to make any money selling copies. Let’s get that cleared up for a start.
Artists make money by selling their music to their audience.
However, if some fool gets a law passed that makes it legal to share music for nothing, but still illegal to share music for money, then artists can’t sell their music to their audience (unless they get the appropriate copyright licenses).
Think about it. Lily Allen says to her fans “I’ll sing ‘My Way’ for $1,000 and deliver the recording to you via BitTorrent”. Unless she gets the appropriate license from the cartel, she’s going to end up fined big bucks, because file-sharing hasn’t been legalised for commercial purposes. This means that the cartel effectively obtain control of the file-sharing networks for anyone who actually wants to get paid for their work by their audience directly, instead of via the record labels.
File-sharing isn’t just about making free copies, it also enables an artist to deliver their work directly to their audience – in exchange for their audience’s money.
October 7th, 2009 at 4:08 pm
Billy, Jon…
I look forward to seeing the new site in action!
October 7th, 2009 at 4:14 pm
Only SOME creators deserve to get paid not ALL. Their are certainly many “creators” or “entertainers calling themselves creators” who think they deserve to get paid but cant get shit because nobody wants to give them a dime for their terrible music etc. The anti-p2p organizations are only extending their reach country by country and you honestly want to reach across the aisle and say: You know what.. I think creators deserve to get paid even though some of them like to sue innocent people? Or create complete garbage, then blame their lack of sales of “piracy”. Surfer has a good point. His opinion is the only opinion here I agree with on this particular topic though henry makes some excellent points as well. I cant see myself ever siding with the likes of any anti-p2p ideologies.
If its good I will buy it or donate. If you try and sell me crap you wont get a dime. If your organization happens to be a primary funder for any anti-p2p lobbies/organizations then you better try twice as hard to impress me.
Creators do not ‘deserve’ to be paid.
October 7th, 2009 at 4:35 pm
” Who’s going to pay for the website?
John, you always say you can barely make ends meet.
You, Billy Bragg or the FAC paying for it would be a conflict of interest.
Could it be your anonymous benefactor? If so, reveal the name now. ”
Wow, you really are desperate.
Have you ever even SEEN the sun ?
October 7th, 2009 at 5:06 pm
@Monkey D. Luffy, totally agreed. Any future agreement between artists and fans will not survive if it has anything to do with the RIAA.
Also, about point 1 from the article. I have no problem with this, though what and how artists get paid is obviously something that needs to be resolved. Every so often I donate $5-$10 to Jonathan Coulton. Why? Not only am I tipping him for the music he’s already made, but mostly I’m paying him so that he’ll create more awesome tunes.
October 7th, 2009 at 5:46 pm
@lando calrissian, I completely agree with you. No-one deserves to get paid for their work. They’ve never been paid on a ‘deserve’ basis either. People have always been paid by those who WANT them to produce their work. So artists only deserve to be paid by those who have agreed to pay them to work. If you don’t want Lily Allen to sing, you don’t owe her a penny – even if one of her songs appeared on a compilation album you’ve downloaded. However, if you offer her $5 to sing Happy Birthday, and she sings it for you (and anyone else who made that offer) then you owe her $5. She did as you asked and she deserves what you offered. It’s your money. You decide who you spend it on and whose work is worth paying for.
The principle as ever is that one pays for the work one has commissioned, not for the value one obtains from work already commissioned.
You do not pay a basket maker each time you extract value from the basket you bought from them. You buy the basket, and that’s it. You can share the basket with your friends and no-one ever need pay the basket maker again for their work in creating that basket – however many times you use the basket or how useful you find it. Of course, if the basket’s good you may be inclined to pay them to produce another. If the song’s good, you’ll pay the singer to sing it again another time, or sing a different song.
If you want a song sung pay a singer to sing it.
If you want a vinyl recording made of that song, then pay a record label for a pressing.
If you want an MP3, make it yourself.
No-one needs a monopoly.
October 7th, 2009 at 6:14 pm
I will be looking forward to the new site, and will be willing to shed the “handle” to participate.
Has anyone considered the idea that those who post here, or on the new site could donate
towards the expenses to run it??
I think its awesome that Jon and Billy have stuck out their necks to keep this dialog going,
and even if we are all a bunch of paranoid sceptics, it deserves the oportunity to succeed!!
October 7th, 2009 at 6:20 pm
@Crosbie
“If you want a vinyl recording made of that song, then pay a record label for a pressing.”
Because that is affordable of course o_O
At the rest of your comment, while I can see where you are coming from it just isn’t going to work like that, pretty much ever.
I paint a bit with oils, I’m not great at it but I have done a few I’m pleased with and who knows I may even be able to sell if I was inclined at the odd craft fair or something. If I did sell one, would I want that person who perhaps has no skill set of their own to then print and resell their own copy/prints of my painting many many times, earning themselves a substantial amount of money, whilst I perhaps struggle barely paying for my materials and have no legal recourse.
I wouldn’t care if my painting was leant to a friend, or perhaps even a copy given to a friend, but to have no legal means to stop someone abusing my painting at all is plain wrong. If I decided to release my painting with a different licence then that is my call, like I have posted photographs (fairly decent ones) with a creative commons. I have released my computer artwork into the public domain (I used to be an artist in the Amiga demo scene), but its my choice, when and where I choose.
Copyright should persist, I also believe it should last the lifetime of the artist and the end of any contracts made during their lifetime, it shouldn’t extend past their lifetime. Personal sharing should also be exempt, commercial piracy should not. Advertising on a web page, or a “donate” button on a webpage is not commercial imo, requiring a repeating membership charge would be though.
End of the day, until Earth is the Utopia you envision then we need copyright in some form as a legal safeguard. Getting to your Utopia is going to take a lot of work and be reached in inches not one massive step, your rhetoric might be better suited to farther down the line than repeated endlessly here at this point.
October 7th, 2009 at 6:30 pm
Hey congrats Jon. Hope it works out!
October 7th, 2009 at 7:05 pm
@ Marc:
Thanks. For my part, this has been almost nine years in the making.
Cheers!
October 7th, 2009 at 8:15 pm
It’s not “Problem – Reaction – Solution”; nor is it “No Problem – Reaction – Solution”.
This is “Whatever – Reaction – Implementation – Chaos – Downward Spiral – (Ultimately) Death”.
October 7th, 2009 at 9:14 pm
@CPQ:
What if you were compensated nicely for that painting? Not $5 but $100? And you were inspired to write more? Isn’t that the point? You are able to hold a TEMPORARY monopoly to support you financially until your next work is ready to be released!
If you extend copyright to your lifetime, then you could be a lazy bum and never do anything, living off your copies being sold. That is not natural, as Crosbie says, and that’s not how everyone else works. Why should you be any different?
If you want income, you’ll have to work for it, that means create more! That’s why you don’t need crazy copyright laws like we have now.
If you have what you want, no one can copy/reproduce/modify and resell your work, which means it won’t spread. Maybe your original piece doesn’t do it for many people at first, but a derivative of it might, then they come back for the original once they understand it more. That won’t happen with your copyright-for-life idea.
You stand better chances having sold that work for $50, let that guy copy it and sell it for $100 and have your name spread around than if you simply created your own work and that’s it. Your copy sold. That’s it.
Do you have the funds to create perfect copies of your oil paintings? Probably not from what you described, so wouldn’t you be shortchanging your future with your copyright law?
And it is much more difficult to create a perfect copy of an oil painting than an MP3. If a computer could scan your painting, and some how create an amazing replication that gives the look and feel of a real oil painting (impossible), then you yourself could create those copies and let them loose on the web.
As said on this site many times, arguing digital music versus some physical object which cannot be replicated with virtually zero cost is not arguing two valid variables in the same set. You’re comparing complex numbers and integers. Unless you convert your integer into a complex number, you cannot do anything with the two of them!
Or maybe “you are comparing apples to bananas” would have been a better analogy. Sorry, I had a geek moment.
October 8th, 2009 at 12:00 am
Oh one more thing.
If you start this music blog, will you use a Term of Use like Warner?
(ie. Anything you post in our blog we own in perpetuity and you lose all rights to what you wrote)
October 8th, 2009 at 12:23 am
It’s a start I suppose, but what about movies, television shows, video games and all other software, all forms of print, patent, trademark and all the other stuff I can’t think of at the moment? Is this a case of ‘one battle at a time’, meaning just focusing on the music aspect of the war instead of copyright as a whole? I’m kinda confused.
October 8th, 2009 at 1:59 am
I think the conversation will have ramifications beyond music, but music is where we all start, and it is where we have the most experience. I think we’ll figure out along the way where the rules have to diverge for visual and other content, and that’s where we can split off on those subjects. I think we can start best with generalities, and music filesharing is where we find most of those.
October 8th, 2009 at 2:59 am
5. Content creators have to accept that some people will never pay for their music, but they are the minority.
October 8th, 2009 at 4:23 am
@Robert
Don’t get hung up on the fact I used paintings as an example, that is all it was, an example.
Now…
“You stand better chances having sold that work for $50, let that guy copy it and sell it for $100 and have your name spread around than if you simply created your own work and that’s it. Your copy sold. That’s it.”
So you honestly believe that despite spending many years learning to paint and the costs involved in time and effort (continuing my example) that it is fair and proper for someone with access to a method of duplicating my paintings, that he should be legally allowed to make 10,20,1000 or 5000 prints of my painting to sell as he see’s fit and I should not be able to do a thing. If I want to use that as a marketing tool then it should be my choice, but I certainly should be able to decide for myself on the matter.
Lets say as an alternative that you Robert suddenly develops the ability to write music and next year have a global number one smash hit record/album In 2012 because you released it specifically without any form of license at all the RIAA and MPAA decide to use a piece in all of their video/cinema/tv propaganda, no copyright means you cannot do a thing about it, you would be linked to something you abhor and be unable to change. Your fans may consider you now selling out to the “enemy” even. That would be ok?
October 8th, 2009 at 6:48 am
@CPQ:
I CAN write music and fans would know that I do not approve and I could sue! We’re talking about making copies and controlling copies.
Crosbie has explained how it is possible to control misinterpretation already, or maybe he can clarify (in another thread is where he wrote it) how it is possible to control the use without controlling the copies.
Maybe what I am trying to get you to think about, similar to the TechDirt posts of give them something to purchase and infinite goods (aka copies of your work, not the original, but copies) are free and now that it is no longer controlled you can’t expect to actually be able to stop it.
The idea is not “oh well, I might as well give my new album away for free”, no it is you are paid for the content, the original recording. Or in your example, you are paid for your painting and you go and create more, new different paintings. If someone freely distributes your painting at a cost of $0, the same thing you could do (— see why paintings are a bad example? —) why would you imagine trying to control it?
To really be consistent with music, you have to change your example. The guy at the local fair who purchased your paintings is a genius and he’s able to copy them, creating exact replicas, FOR FREE, and he GIVES THEM AWAY for FREE. Now you have the exact situation we’re in with music.
No one is going to pay for MP3 when you can get them for free, UNLESS you are paying the artist directly for the original copy, or at least you are given the opportunity and the funds go directly to the artist. If the funds go directly to the artist, as many people have already explained, most will pay for it, despite it being available elsewhere for free.
But the artist should not be a douche and charge $3 for their newly recorded song because they spent 5yrs in their bedroom practicing scales and chords. That is not how it works. Art has a value, yes, but it is not going to be what the artist thinks it is worth, it is what the market thinks it is worth.
Another thing, you are arguing two points simultaneously which makes things more difficult. Don’t make things convoluted.
You are discussing free copies of your work and then you tie in with that a separate argument of someone using your work for something other than you intended, the latter is against natural rights. The latter is the same as someone saying they wrote your song or they painted your painting and is against natural rights and you can fight that in court, without crazy copyright laws about … making copies and distributing them. You’re not in the issue of making copies and distribution of said copies when you are arguing about someone taking your creation as your own or misusing it as an endorsement.
And fans would know you’re not a sell out if you actually communicated with them.
October 8th, 2009 at 7:05 am
Good move Jon, but we’ll finish the piratebay anyway.
October 8th, 2009 at 7:36 am
@Robert
Point taken about many things, thank you for indulging me.
“If the funds go directly to the artist, as many people have already explained, most will pay for it, despite it being available elsewhere for free.”
Yes, just a couple of days ago I sent Dan Bull some money for his Dear Lily open letter/video and his album he made available online. I only sent a little as the album itself isn’t really my thing but I admit I think its growing on me. I may have to consider sending a little more next time.
Perhaps the future lies with artists interacting better with fans, through forums, gigs and such. I’m not sure how but building a relationship/community does seem to work as a means of eliciting funding, many community driven websites manage doing that.
I don’t have any answers but I am keen to see a change to the situation at present, but I think the most important thing to address first is stop consumers being turned into targets for the sake of corporate profit.
This is why I am excited to maximise this opportunity we have to address concerns directly with artists now. We need to be clear about the process though and take it in steps, of that I am certain. trying to bring down copyright at this time is premature. Lets just stop members of the public being fleeced in court for sharing a few tracks as step one and move on from their about talks of ending copyright, a war is won by inches.
October 8th, 2009 at 4:14 pm
Very interested by the comments left here and the reception to Jon’s post. I recognise that there are risks involved for everyone in this debate, but by being honest with one another, we can hopefully ensure that no lasting harm is done. To that end, should posters have to register?
I should stress that the four points that Jon has laid out here are points for debate, rather than an accord in themselves. I hope over the next month or so we can hammer out a version of words that will not only frame the debate, but also send a clear message about where the p2p community stands to the other players in this industry – the labels, ISPs, govt and, of course, the artists.
I don’t think we need to take on the problems of the other content industries. I feel sure that they will be watching with interest for any signs of progress or division.
Reader’s Write:
5. Content creators have to accept that some people will never pay for their music, but they are the minority.
I agree, but I think it ought to be “Content creators should accept…..”, rather than “have to accept” Let’s not be too prescriptive in our discussions.
Would it help to have some protocols? For instance, I would like to suggest that artists should refrain from accusing p2p users of stealing, but instead focus their arguments about remuneration on the understanding expressed in the first point for debate, that creators want, and need, to be paid for their work, and we, as music lovers, want to pay them.
October 8th, 2009 at 8:45 pm
” that creators want, and need, to be paid for their work, and we, as music lovers, want to pay them. ”
I can accept ‘Creators want to be paid’ and ‘Music lover want to pay them’ , but ‘need’ ?
That comes close to ‘deserve’ and i’m not sure thats the case.
Real ‘creators’ as in ‘artists’ need to create.
Whether or not they get paid can only be measured by the art lovers subjective opinion of
their work.
” I would like to suggest that artists should refrain from accusing p2p users of stealing, ”
Absolutely.
P2P folk should in turn do their level best to not assume that every opponent that comes here
is a money grubbing jerk.
The BEST protocol is one of mutual COURTESY.
Mutual respect may come as deserved.
October 8th, 2009 at 8:47 pm
” Mutual respect may come as deserved. ”
As earned is what I meant to say.
oh for an edit button
October 10th, 2009 at 3:30 am
“I agree, but I think it ought to be “Content creators should accept…..”, rather than “have to accept” Let’s not be too prescriptive in our discussions.”
Billy:
Would you consider the following statement prescriptive:
“You shouldn’t be surprised if you fall downward, if you step into an empty elevator shaft.”
There’s a difference between “prescribing” what somebody should do, and stating a fact. Some of those who hear your stuff *for free* (via mp3 or radio or your Youtube page, or those bootlegs you so magnanamously “allow” your fans to trade amongst themselves) aren’t going to pay you. Hell, at least here in the States, nobody who buys copies of your stuff “used” is going to be paying *you* either. (It’s called the “First sale doctrine”.) Look it up on Wikipedia.
Artists “should” acknowledge that fact, in the same way that you “should” acknowledge the serious potential of electrocution if you grab a high-voltage fence.
You “should” acknowledge it, because you ignore it at your own peril.
October 21st, 2009 at 6:52 pm
hi jon! been away for a spell,so whati’m saying has prolly been said! i will happily pay those how write music and lyrics! the minute the riaa becomes involved , bye now! they have caused to much grief to too many people.