Walruses and sock puppets
p2pnet news view Freedom | P2P:- The pic on the right came in an email yesterday.
No text, but the message is clear enough.
There were also other emails waiting for me this morning, most of them saying, politely and not so polititely, I’m making a Big Mistake by talking with Billy Bragg.
But before I go on, to address points raised in one email: p2pnet isn’t entrepreneurial and it isn’t a business. Corny as it may sound, it’s a commitment.
As regular contributor catflap has just said in an email, “You own and run p2pnet, but p2pnet has become more than you — commenters and readers and writers alike. Don’t you think so?”
I do indeed.
There’s no paid staff. In fact, there’s no staff at all. Just me. Everyone who contributes – including people who post Reader’s Writes — does so because s/he wants to, or because I’ve asked if I can reproduce their work here. But no one receives a dime —- not that I wouldn’t love to be able to commission works and pay for articles.
p2pnet is a personal page which went online in August, 2002. As I say in About »»»
It was the first Internet web page to carry daily, frequently updated news, stories, features and commentaries on digital media, distributed computing and associated technologies and events which haven`t been spun, filtered and pre-digested by vested corporate interests.
It places special emphasis on freedom of speech, P2P and sharing.
It’s my sole source of income and believe me, it’s often a struggle, and always a worry. No fat cigars, even if I did smoke. 
p2pnet survives, quite literally, month-to-month thanks to a supporter who wants to remain anonymous, but who’s been meeting the lion’s share of my expenses for approaching two years, and to flat rate payments from advertisers, all of whom I regard as friends.
Those @#$%^&* pirates!
In We are the walrus. Or, thank you Lily Allen, “I ran a post slugged Billy Bragg solves the file sharing problem,” I said, going on »»»
It was based on his September 30 editorial in The Guardian called A better way to sink internet pirates.
I followed it up yesterday with Billy Bragg to p2pnet and over the course of the two posts, something happened I don`t believe has happened before since the file sharing controversy was launched by the labels in 2003.
Then, working for Vivendi Universal, EMI, Warner Music, Sony Music, their RIAA started the bizarre sue `em all marketing campaign under which the people who kept the labels in business are called criminals and thieves and are `persuaded` to continue consuming `product` under constant threat of being financially ruined in the law courts if they don`t.
My original post was less than complimentary to Billy Bragg. But he responded in a series of comments addressing individual points raised by p2pnet readers.
I added, “And I believe his explanations and observations not only clarified what`s going on in the minds of some, at least, independent and contracted artists in a way never seen before, but by virtue of the fact he bothered to post at all, he also gave us access to musicians who until this point have been locked off.”
I still see it that way.
The Big4 love fragmentation
For close to eight years there’s been a vicious fight started by the major corporate music labels, who want to control everything at any price. And that includes everyone who likes music. But to the best of my knowledge, there’s never, ever, been a way for fans to talk directly with musicians, and vice versa.
Which suits music industry just fine. They love fragmentation. They adore it. It suits them right down to the ground to see us constantly at odds with each other.
Because divided, we’re just a bunch of powerless fools running around like headless chickens. And that’s precisely the way Vivendi Universal (France), Sony (Japan), EMI (Britain), and Warner Music (US, but controlled by a Canadian) who are, to all intents and purposes, the corporate music industry, want things to stay.
The absolute last thing they want is to see us talking together without corporate interference.
There are lots of differences. And there are just as many misperceptions. On both sides. But the only way they’ll get sorted is if we talk to each other. And that means taking risks and being open to being wrong.
So fuck ‘em. It doesn’t matter a damn if we’re disagreeing. As long as we’re talking, sooner or later, we’ll reach common ground. Guaranteed.
As I said to someone in an email this morning, “On Billy Bragg, for me, it’s simple. This is a fairly well-known UK performer who’s plugged into the music industry. I can talk with him without agreeing with everything he says. The way things are, everything is so polarised that intelligent, two-way communication is practically impossible.
“I’ve spoken with Bragg on the phone and he strikes me as someone who’s genuinely willing to talk and listen and who might be able to help.
“If I’m wrong, we’ll soon know and I’ll freely and plainly admit it in big black letters.”
Keep on talking …
A little while back I was attacked by a Big Music executive for standing up for two people chosen as Big Music poster victims.
Now, somewhat ironically, I’m being attacked for wanting to see conversations start between fans and music-makers.
However, the only way any of us can move forward and, not at all incidentally, confound Big Music, is to start talking to each other and keep talking.
So if you have any ideas, share them. 
For example, here’s what Henry Emrich suggests Bill should do »»»
1. Retract your `overwhelming` support for Liy Allen and her corporate paymasters. Do NOT support throttling (even for `incorrigible` file-sharers) because doing so inevitably demonizes the entire p2p community, and in so doing, concedes the corporate labels` entire argument.
2. Issue a statement advocating that copyright terms be reduced to something more reasonable/less overtly pernicious. (Remember, Billy: for all your bravado about how p2pers are `stealing your apples`, the fact is, those `apples` were â and are â indended to eventually enter the Public Domain. Monopoly privileges like copyright are just that â PRIVILEGES, and, as the p2p thing illustrates, you/your corporate handers ignore that at your peril.
3. Read Lawrence Lessig`s book Free Culture. It`s available on the Net for free, and it`s not that long. Hell, there`s even an audiobook version for free download, so you don`t even have THAT excuse. If you`re going to run an `advocacy` lobby, it only makes sense that you understand at least something about the issues you`re lobbying about.
4. Please stop recycling corporate boilerplate about the `threat` posed by p2p. Despite their whimpering, the corporate entertainment industry is doing just fine. P2p represents a potential threat to them, alright: the threat that folks might be able to get noticed WITHOUT having a multi-billion dollar corporate propaganda machine behind them. (You, of ALL people, should understand the inherent appeal of DIY, REAL grassroots, etc. After all, you did come out of the Punk scene, which was pretty much built on fanzines and GENUINELY independent labels, some of which were thrown together very literally on a shoestring budget.)
5. Please follow this link: http://questioncopyright.org/compensation
Meanwhile, one of the emails I saw this morning suggested I’m being paid for “ratting out to the labels”.
A long time ago a significant music industry figure suggested I might find it “interesting” to see the corporate music industry in a more “balanced” way.
But this, not that, is what’s interesting.
Stay tuned.
UPDATE:- Now check out Dear music lovers
Cheers!
Jon Newton – p2pnet
First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win ~ Mahatma Gandhi
And check out »»»
- `Just some stuff to think about, Billy`
- We are the walrus. Or, thank you Lily Allen
- Billy Bragg to p2pnet
- Yeh, Billy Bragg, but what about the indies?
- Billy Bragg solves the file sharing problem
Stay tuned.
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 6th, 2009 at 1:13 pm
It’s good to talk.
Free cultural exchange is vital to human civilisation, and that includes talking about it.
It’s when people refuse to talk to each other that things start deteriorating.
Engagement in discussion is about the exchange of ideas, it shouldn’t be misconstrued as an inevitable compromise of principles.
October 6th, 2009 at 2:55 pm
Hooray for these threads. Hooray for Jon and p2pnet. Hooray for Billy Bragg standing up for what he believes in, and for coming here to respond to those who challenge him.
Anyone who has spent time here knows the hit-and-run tactics used in the past by proponents of corporate music. They come in and suggest a dialog and then never respond.
Remember Dick Huey, the SoundExchange Director who promised a dialog after he anonymously slagged me for being someone with a vested interest in attacking SoundExchange over it’s myriad of failures in serving artists? Remember how he apologized for attacking the wrong person (not for the attack itself, mind you), and promised as a way of making up for it to honestly answer everyone’s questions? Remember how he disappeared from p2pnet, never to be seen again? That’s the normal history of “two-sided” discussion here. Bragg’s breaking the pattern, and that shouldn’t be a cause for alarm.
I don’t know Billy Bragg. I know people who know him, and they like him. They say he’s smart and he’s honest and he listens. Is he going to change anyone’s mind here? Not likely. Are we going to change his mind? That’s just about as unlikely, but the whole idea of discussion is to exchange ideas, not convert the heathen. He didn’t come to p2pnet for the sermon, or to take communion, but we shouldn’t slam the door on anyone who doesn’t share the orthodox p2pnet view of the universe, if there is one (and I pray there isn’t, because I’ll end up branded as a heretic sooner or later.) We had better start realizing filesharing and copyright are not limited-option questions, and that Billy Bragg represents an open door to publicly evaluating all the options with someone who is in a position, thanks to FAC, to make sure all the options are on the table. That’s a remarkable thing in and of itself, and hooray again for p2pnet and Jon for creating the space for that.
It took some guts for Billy Bragg to show up here. It will take an equal amount of guts for those of us who disagree with him on these issues to not fall back on the slogans and buzzwords that suffice when no one with access to the other side is really listening. Take it from someone who has been talking to closed doors as a (dumb) career, this is an amazing chance to actually move the discussion forward.
October 6th, 2009 at 3:44 pm
Talking is great. It’s just that I know for myself, whenever I see somebody from “the music industry” trying to enter discussions with the community, it seems like it turns into some kind of borked plan to keep selling copies. From mp3 download sites to subscription services, these are all ideas that are doomed to fail, as Crosbie Fitch often explains far more eloquently than I.
It always seems to me that when folks like Bragg come calling, they’re still thinking of finding a “solution” to the “problem” and setting up some kind of new marketplace for the same old stuff. Baby steps aside, I wish there were more people like Henry Emrich who finally realized that there has been a complete paradigm shift, such that the old ways of doing things are completely non-viable.
It’s not a matter of finding the right digital storefront to set up where people can pay to download files. Maybe that’s not what Bragg’s looking for and he truly is open to genuine discussion – but it doesn’t feel like it. I’m looking forward to hear how the meeting between the two of you goes, Jon. More power to you.
October 6th, 2009 at 4:00 pm
When was the last time you saw someone from the industry “trying to enter discussions with the community”?
October 6th, 2009 at 5:42 pm
“When was the last time you saw someone from the industry âtrying to enter discussions with the communityâ?”
We have had the occasional visit, which usually turned into a “drive-by” slam at filesharers.
The point was, what is happening now with Billy is unprecedented and deserves at least cautious optimism.
October 6th, 2009 at 6:17 pm
Well, unlike the usual “samiam” riaa trolls, you know exactly who this guy is, and at least it seems like his opinions are his own and he’s not a paid shill. I doubt he can be convinced that p2p file sharing is a good thing, but it may at least be slightly possible to convince him that the RIAA punitive approach is horrible for musician/fan relationships. RIAA recording contracts have always seemed somewhat of a crapshoot to me, some musicians seem to do well off them, and others, even with decent album sales seem to get screwed by shady accounting practices and get nothing. I think musicians would do better first demanding a more open and consistent accounting and payment system from the RIAA so that ALL musicians with decent album sales get paid. From what I have been reading no musician has received a cut of ANY of the settlement money paid by file sharers who have been sued for illegally sharing their songs.
If he reads this, I’d like to ask Billy Bragg; why do you tolerate this? Why don’t you, and other musicians demand of the RIAA that they either pay you a percentage of the settlement money, or stop using your name and songs on subpoenas? As things are right now, YOU are getting the alienation and hostility from fans, while the RIAA takes ALL the money.
I think at this point it’s too late for any fan reconciliation with the RIAA, if musicians want to come up with a new payment model it needs to be one that cuts those assholes completely out of the picture (No net/downloading tax, as that would just go to the RIAA via sound exchange or some other RIAA shill group ).
October 6th, 2009 at 6:29 pm
“Thatâs the normal history of âtwo-sidedâ discussion here. Braggâs breaking the pattern, and that shouldnât be a cause for alarm.”
Not “alarm” as such, no.
Healthy skepticism, yes — especially when the guy’s already admitted that — when pressured by the labels to ’say something’ — they opted to back the Label’s position. Not encouraging or auspicious at all, because it either means:
1. They agree with the labels tactics and strategy (which would be bad)
2. Being “pressured” causes them to cave in, and say stuff they “really” don’t believe (and WTF kinda advocacy-lobby is THAT?)
3. They REALLY DO support Lily Allen, and think that she was ‘abused’. (All that ‘tearful, eloquent’ crap)
4. They really didn’t like Lily’s position, or the 3-strikes thing, but were somehow tricked into supporting it.
Frankly, none of those scenarios are that helpful, either to us (p2p/free-culture advocates) or THEM (corporate musicians trying to break ranks with the RIAA etc.) What kind of “resistance” is it, when they end up falling in line behind the corporations’ anyway?
To be sure (if France is any indication) the British government would have simply done the 3-strikes thing anyway (Sarkoszy kept hammering it over and over and over, remember), so it was probably going to happen anyway, whatever ANYBODY said.
What’s troubling to many — and yes, even me, an American — is that “under pressure” they felt compelled to explicitly support a plan originated by the organizations from whom them claim to be dissenting (the corporate labels and their lobbyists).
That’s just disheartening as all hell, to be honest.
And then to go and crow about it in a newspaper article? Damn.
So you can see why some people here would be skeptical. I’d be dissapointed if they weren’t.
Anybody remember “Sam I Am”?
On another site (during his seemingly-endless trolling and flamewars and crap) he said something about how he was no friend of the RIAA member-corporations because they ‘extorted’ him for use of his music in fashion shows and suchlike. But Y’know what? Mysteriously, every time the RIAA’s corporate backers did something, he supported it in the most glowing terms imaginable. So naturally, I called “bullshit” on the whole thing, and ended up being the brunt of several flame-wars as a result.
(Truth be told, it was kinda fun).
I never once believed that “Sam I Am’ was anything but a rabid corporate apologist, despite pretensions to the contraty.
Why do I bring him up?
Because it’s REALLY easy to SAY one thing, and DO another.
Offering support — much less “overwhelming” support — for the corporate kartel’s 3-strikes shit is inexcusable.
But yeah, slagging Jon over this is just senseless. If there’s one person here who would never sell out, it’s Jon. And look on the bright side, folks: if it DOES turn out that he’s a double agent or something, no worries. Look what happened to the “new” napster, the “new” mp2.com, Even TPB back during the Global-Gaming bullshit: if the corporate-lapdog stench ever gets to strong, people desert in droves, and any potential poison is thereby neutralized.
So give the guy a chance: this might actually work out.
October 6th, 2009 at 7:25 pm
Your motives in this matter are not suspect Jon, there is nothing wrong in entertaining dialogue or even facillitating it where possible so that all may benefit, a worthy aim in my book.
October 6th, 2009 at 11:18 pm
So, we can all agree, then, that both “sides” of this discussion have no problem with Jon. (?)
October 7th, 2009 at 1:34 am
“So, we can all agree, then, that both âsidesâ of this discussion have no problem with Jon. (?)
”
Well, somebody obviously does, judging by the sockpuppet pictures and flame-mail and such.
To be honest, this discussion with Billy Bragg is starting to look like something potentially good.
Hell, I’ll personally just be happen if he reads the Lessig thing.
October 7th, 2009 at 1:56 am
“Hell, Iâll personally just be happen if he reads the Lessig thing.:)”
1) I wish everyone could be “happen” :p
2) I believe BB when he says he’ll look over the Lessig book.
October 7th, 2009 at 10:32 am
DA:
Damn….I can’t type!
October 7th, 2009 at 12:33 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 got for that.
But as someone here has said, I also won’t keep paying for copies. If a system is ever put into place that allows any filesharer’s torrents to include a “donate to artist button”, something that Billy Bragg has indicated he’d not be against, i’d probably use it from time to time, but not every time for every copy.
I’m not ever going to stop downloading for free. Nut just as in the physical world, I’ll pay (or donate) for what I like, in the amount of my choosing.
October 7th, 2009 at 3:48 pm
What’s developed in the last several days on P2PNet sounds like the seeds of a very useful and productive conversation between an artist and many music fans.
I am interested in seeing where the conversation leads. I say that, not in my capacity as a Soundexchange board member, not as someone who has worked with hundreds of different independent labels and artists to promote their music, not as someone representing anything, but rather as another music fan with his own viewpoint on these issues, who actively engages with managers, labels (major and independent), internet radio station staff, independent artists, and music fans on a regular basis, in a variety of different professional and personal capacities.
Billy Bragg’s P2PNet discussion is an important one to be nurtured, and I don’t want the issue of my attack on Fred Wilhelms some two years ago, mentioned above, to be even a sideshow distraction in the room. My post was not an example of an open mind; besides being misinformed, it was a mistake, it did nothing to start a conversation, and I am sorry for it. I read P2PNet to inform my thinking. Some of the points raised by Fred and others on this site have made me question the status quo in any number of areas, and look deeper for ways that I can participate in the process of change.
Reading the posts and responses above reminds me that a conversation gets a lot further if it does not start with an attack. I see a lot of people in these threads willing to listen to each other and look for common ground, and that *is* refreshing.
Fred Wilhelms – my apologies for that attack. I’ve replied to your comment above under my name so there’s no question who’s apologizing. Jon, I apologize to you as well, for launching my attack on your site. I laud your ongoing efforts to create an interesting discussion here.
Best wishes,
Dick Huey
October 7th, 2009 at 6:16 pm
@ Dick:
Thanks for that. It was a good thing to do and it’s this kind of positive energy that’s going to make the difference.
Cheers!
October 7th, 2009 at 9:04 pm
I’ve got a longer response in the works, but I also need to say thank you, Dick.
October 9th, 2009 at 5:31 am
@Fred
“Is he going to change anyoneâs mind here? Not likely. Are we going to change his mind? Thatâs just about as unlikely,”
I don’t think this is entirely about changing minds, I haven’t actually read anything of Billy’s yet that says he needs his mind changing on file sharing, he has openly said that it isn’t a threat hasn’t he, in another comment?
I don’t need my mind changing on file sharing, but what I do want is a better method of reimbursing artists whose music I enjoy. I don’t want to be prosecuted for discovering new music, isn’t that fairly typical of most file sharers?
The change seems to need to come from the process of distributing the music and paying for it. Copyright isn’t going anywhere just yet, but it might be something that needs to be dealt with later (not sure about that personally)