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)

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!

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

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.

1) I wish everyone could be “happen” :p
2) I believe BB when he says he’ll look over the Lessig book.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.