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.

As earned is what I meant to say.

oh for an edit button

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.

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.

“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.

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.

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?

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)

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.

This is “Whatever – Reaction – Implementation – Chaos – Downward Spiral – (Ultimately) Death”.

Thanks. For my part, this has been almost nine years in the making.

Cheers!

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.

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!!

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.