Add real-time p2pnet headlines to YOUR site ! Click here to download our newsfeed code

82 Responses to “‘Just some stuff to think about, Billy’”

1. catflap Says:
   October 6th, 2009 at 9:33 am

   The general public have been brainwashed into the X-Factor/Idol/Got Talent attitude, as well. This is also
   part of the lottery mentality.

   Hopeful wannabes (for the most part untalented) have been brainwashed to want a major recording contract because they’re told that’s the only way they can “make it.”

   And the public believes this, and encourages it, by watching these dumbass talent shows and paying extortionate rates to call or text a vote, which help to fund the programs and ensure high ratings – and pricing scams and scandals and vote-rigging.

   Once in a while a true talent comes along – like that woman from Scotland I seem to have heard “something” about. She’s shoved into the spotlight (firstly because of her homely looks, secondly her talent) and the world press invades her home and life with oohs and ahhs for weeks, and then they wonder why she had a nervous breakdown within the first month?

   She was exploited because her physical appearance wasn’t that of a Barbie doll, which gave the press an advantage. If she had the same voice but looked like Raquel Welch, they wouldn’t have given her a second look.

   So the public believes that even if you’re homely, you should go and win yourself a major label contract.

2. Reader's Write Says:
   October 6th, 2009 at 10:14 am

   ^^ wtf does that have to do with anything?

3. Sam I'm Not Says:
   October 6th, 2009 at 11:04 am

   You have had a good run but you have been sliding of late. Time to call it a day.

4. Cynix Says:
   October 6th, 2009 at 11:07 am

   @Sam I’m Not

   Who are you referring to?

5. Sam I'm Not Says:
   October 6th, 2009 at 11:23 am

   Jon. Who else?

6. Jon Says:
   October 6th, 2009 at 11:33 am

   Nothing happens — NOTHING — unless people talk to each other.

   We’re talking to Billy and, by default, people around him. And he and they are talking to us.

   That’s bad?

   Cheers!

7. Devil's Advocate Says:
   October 6th, 2009 at 12:45 pm

   Sam, (and, this goes for anyone who just wants to exchange hatred and not contribute anything toward the discussion), I’ll put it as diplomatically as possible… please do the rest of us a favour and go find something to do! Those of you who fit into this description know who you are.

   Whether this Billy-FAC-p2pnet-music fans dialogue appears to any of us as constructive or a complete waste of time, we need to give it some dignity. Regardless of what you may think of him at this time, Billy is the first artist of his standing to take the time to do this with us, and THAT ALONE deserves something!

   One of the major complaints shared by the P2P community at large is that the whole music industry paints this picture of filesharers as being “anti-artist”, and “incapable of reason”. Since we all know and despise this particular piece of “spin”, you’d think we’d jump at the chance to demonstrate how very false it is.

   But, if you’d rather let the propaganda thrive, by all means!
   Keep treating this as a flameboard for nonsensical spew that has nothing to do with the discussion, and contains no constructive value for those, such as the FAC, to consider changing anything from their viewpoint.

8. Aaron Says:
   October 6th, 2009 at 12:48 pm

   Really! What harm can talking do? We should be careful to not alienate potential allies. Maybe Billy is not an ally, but it sounds like he might be persuaded/educated. Let’s not reject that possibility. If it doesn’t work out at the end of the day, things likely won’t be much worse off than they are now. On the other hand, if it does work (whatever that may mean) then we might end up with something better than what we’ve got now.

   That being said, I’m not terribly optimistic. There’s too much bad blood between too many people and the RIAA, and most artists don’t seem willing to sever ties with them. Even if they announced a $5/month blanket all you can share in any format by any means you like license, I don’t think I’d sign up, if the big record companies were involved. I WILL NOT SUPPORT any company that commits such heartlessly brutal acts against innocent citizens. Suing Torrent site operators and disconnecting people from the net is bad enough, but when they ruin peoples lives just to prove a point, that is when they must be forced out of business.

   I want to support artists, but I don’t want to support the RIAA and friends even more. This is why I only purchase music from RIAA-free musicians. I feel a little bad for the artists who otherwise would but who aren’t getting my money because of the RIAA, but I feel even worse for the families who have had to come up with several thousand dollars to pay the RIAA protection money, and still worse for the families who have had their lives destroyed by the harassment of the RIAA lawyers.

   It’s too bad that old web site FairTunes is no longer around. It would solve my dilemma nicely. For those who are too young/don’t remember, FairTunes was a web site which made it easier to tip artists.

   BTW, if anyone knows how I might go about tipping Peter White, I’d be much obliged.

9. catflap Says:
   October 6th, 2009 at 1:16 pm

   @aaron:

   it’s interesting – and good – that you mention education, which has been talked about in these past few days with BB, but something a lot of people miss or misinterpret (not you, aaron).

   BB has said that he and others in FAC also need to be educated in the ways of p2p and filesharers attitudes and opinions.

   as far as i’ve read from him here and FAC statements, they’re against the education/indoctrination of children and students by the RIAA and others who seek to corrupt the minds of the public. i mention this only as a note to people who aren’t aware of this and who think tzhey’re talking about RIAA-type in-school programs.

   BB and FAC have also stated that they want to educate indies and up-and-coming performers of their rights and what they changes need to be made to give them more rights and control so they can be paid fairly, accordingly, and in a timely fashion, and to teach them also how to be a working indie.

   we – and i’ve stated about myself personally – also need a bit of education as to where FAC is coming from and where they want to go. i’ve read just about everything on their website, and i don’t agree with absolutely everything, especially their contention that the pirate bay is a “large-scale, profit-making infringer”. i don’t know if Billy Bragg agrees with this, but that statement by FAC was put out early in their campaign, i believe before the TPB trial concluded. and at that time we hadn’t ever heard of FAC or Lily Allen – and Billy hadn’t yet heard of p2pnet. so perhaps it’s another statement they should want to retract.

   i’ve also stated (like henry) that i think they should change their mind about throttling as it won’t help their cause at all.

   what i do know is as a whole, FAC is against crimialising filesharers, they do know that a download doesn’t equal a lost sale, and they’re trying to fight for all performer’s and technician’s rights.

   i’m glad someone is finally here and taking us seriously. we’ve tried for years to start a conversation like this with several artists, but we were always ignored or called criminals and pirates. it can only be a good thing to keep this going in a balanced discussion.

   none of us make the laws, but we can make a lot of noise together to get laws and attitudes changed.

10. Reader's Write Says:
    October 6th, 2009 at 4:49 pm

    I have to ask artists one thing: bring yourselves back to earth from the skies.

    Dmitry Silnitsky talks a lot about the “lottery mentality”

    ”

    First and most bizarre illusion is that a publication of each new album should lead to a materialization of at least a huge mansion on a private island.

    Even Beatles thought at the scale of “one song – one swimming pool” (and then it was a joke). But they may think that way. Their music brings real happiness to millions of people for more than forty years and millions of copies are being sold even today.

    During these forty years, no artist could get even close to their level of genius.

    But then, who said that a singer whose album can be listened to only once and on fast-forward deserves the same income? Who cares that a million dollar budget has been invested in ‘this’ and it must be recouped?

    Who even invented the concept that a music band or composer should have excess income?

    World history does not confirm this state of affairs. If you exclude these twenty to thirty years of record industry boom (which is a drop in the ocean), the rest of the time creative people had incomes that are just sufficient enough to do the things that they love to do, and not to worry about money too much. Anyway, no need to be distracted from creative activity and no need to be forced to earn money in some other way.

    Nobody ever promised a private island for this sort of activity.

    Let’s have a sober look at things.

    It was only a moment, a moment between the past and the future. It was called the music industry. It was very brief. It was at the crossroads between the time when there was no physical media, and the time when there is no more physical media. And what is horrible in that?

    We still have a lot of relics from that moment. Maybe that’s enough for everyone?

    I liked the most a phrase told by one of my friends, who is a sound engineer. One of his job duties is to listen to a lot of new artists for one reason or another.

    I do not listen to music for free – he said.

    Copyright defenders and all other lawyers, there is no need to start cheering. It does not mean that he does not listen to free music. He meant that he wilfully refuses to listen to modern music, unless he is getting paid for it.

    Approach that is worthy of respect and understanding. After all, if you bought a rotten fish, you consider it as damage to your health. So why do not worry also about your mental health, or at least about spoiled mood?
    “

11. Reader's Write Says:
    October 6th, 2009 at 4:50 pm

    Also, kartels keep buying smaller companies, while it was shown many times that it is POINTLESS to do so:

    “A mere acquisition of one company by another has little meaning. It was very rare when it has brought tangible benefits to justify the acquisition cost. Especially when a huge accounting firm acquires a little creative and effective team in the hope to buy its creativity and charisma. However, the only thing they can achieve by this is killing all of the creativity and bringing their former charisma to zero, sinking it in the muddy puddle under the name of “corporate culture”.”

    It’s from the same article by Dmitry Silnitsky

    http://www.p2pnet.net/story/27344

12. Billy Bragg Says:
    October 6th, 2009 at 8:21 pm

    Henry,

    Just come across this article. I can understand why you’d want to paint me into a corner, because it would allow you to walk away from this debate with your prejudices intact. Unlike you, I am not a free agent. I am a member of the board of an organisation, the FAC, run on democratic lines. Sometimes my arguments prevail, sometimes they don’t. That’s how democracy works. When was the last time you took a vote among all of the members of p2pnet? I’m guessing never because it’s not that kind of a deal. But if you did, I’m sure there would be times when your opinions did not prevail. Would you walk away in a huff? Would you change them to suit the majority? No, I very much doubt it.

    If you want to consider the FAC to be the enemy, that’s fine. Just talk to me, directly, based on what I’ve said and done here and elsewhere.

    On your 4 points

    1) I support Lily Allen because she is a fellow artist. She is not my enemy. My enemy are her corporate paymasters. They hoisted her up there and left her to hang when the going got tough. Some of the vitriol poured on her was highly personal, sexist and abusive. You have every right to criticise her opinions, but the abuse is not necessary.

    2) I want copyright terms to be more reasonable – perhaps not in the exact way that you do – but I want the artist to have the power to say you can use my work for free as I did to someone this morning who emailed me to ask if they could quote a line from one of my songs in their book. I don’t feel that I should be paid for that, but I do want to retain the right to be credited in the footnotes and most importantly to have a legally enforceable veto on the context that my words are being used in – for instance if they should appear on a leaflet of a far right political party.

    3) I haven’t done my homework on Lessig, but I am aware of creative commons. I will follow your recommendation.

    4) I don’t consider p2p to be a threat and I don’t think I’ve said so here or anywhere else. Have you read the stuff on the FAC website, the submission that we made to the Department for Business Innovation & Skills Consultation Paper on Legislation to Address Illicit Peer-to-Peer (P2P) File-Sharing?
    Our position is clear – we do not think it is a threat.

    It’s a shame that the consultation period has closed now, because I very much doubt that anyone from your community made a submission. Why didn’t that happen? Because you’re not organised to be able to speak with a unified voice. Part of the problem you have is that when someone like Jon does try to find a common position to present to govt or industry, he gets called a traitor and flamed.

    Henry, if you did have to sit down with representatives of the p2p user community and hammer out a unified position that got the consent of the majority of users, then I think you’d better appreciate the position I’m in.

13. Robert Says:
    October 6th, 2009 at 9:25 pm

    @Billy Bragg:
    Regarding 2)…
    i) How do you feel about the Public Domain?
    ii) How would you feel if your works were in the Public Domain after 7 years of creation? (Where you could not veto anything)
    iii) Do you feel people would know Beethoven or Mozart or Bach if their works were not in the public domain for anyone to perform and keep alive, culturally?
    iv) How would you feel if 10 years from now you were walking by a pub and heard someone playing your song? Would you wonder if you were getting royalties from it? Would you jam with them?
    v) What if 10 yrs down the road you were walking by a dance club and heard someone’s remix (not live) of your song, to some dance beat and some guy rapping all over it, how would you feel? It’s an obviously rerecorded/produced/mixed recording of your song. What would you do?
    vi) How do you personally feel about taxing internet users so you can collect royalties, whether or not people share your music?
    vii) As many of us predict if vi) were to happen, would you not agree that every agency would come crying for a tax royalty? Would FAC be one of those agencies, claiming to delegate to the artists in a fair way, sorta like ASCAP/SOCAN?
    viii) Do you file share or download music for free?

    Just trying to get an idea about you.

14. Devil's Advocate Says:
    October 6th, 2009 at 10:02 pm

    Naturally, the “file sharing community” is not some formal, organized and finite group that can “sit down and hammer out” anything. NOR SHOULD IT HAVE TO!…

    That’s because it an infinite number of people all over the world that are simply using the technology they own to accomplish what it was actually designed and promoted to. I believe the “corporate” term for such people would be “consumers”. And, if I remember correctly, consumers are supposed to be the ones that effectively “run the show”, as their patrionage is somewhat key to every business model.

    The interesting thing about the Music Industry’s business model was the marriage of the developers of this technology with those that make a business from its by-products themselves (i.e. SONY). Effectively, they sold their consumers both the digital CD and the technology needed to make it.

    Also interestingly enough, people shared music when the cassette tape was around, without getting very much of the flack from the industry as the modern file sharer gets. Making a mixed tape was a common thing, and even when the Industry later turned out the dubbing deck (making direct copying so much easier), we never heard very many complaints about “pirates” (not that there weren’t!), and tape sales still went through the roof.

    Personally, I don’t see any different principle going on in either scenario.
    I do see 2 things that are different today:
    1) The average consumer is not the “collector” of yesterday. The days of buying “everything”, just to have it are over. Music buyers are pickier and fed up with the assembly line crap the labels are trying to pass off as music. They take advantage of file sharing to sample and weed out the stuff they have no intention of buying. CD sales have bottomed out for these reasons alone. File sharing didn’t do it.

    2)Technology has developed to the point where the consumer now has the means to create his own affordable, home studio and distribution center, encouraging many new artists to be “their own label” and “promoter”. This is what’s ultimately going to render Big Media obsolete.

15. Dreddsnik Says:
    October 6th, 2009 at 11:46 pm

    ” It’s a shame that the consultation period has closed now, because I very much doubt that anyone from your community made a submission. Why didn’t that happen? Because you’re not organised to be able to speak with a unified voice. ”

    Bullshit.

    Anyone who even has the appearance of supporting P2P is not invited to these
    consultations. To say otherwise would be .. false.
    Just look at the shenanigans in Canada. Closed door meetings with only
    government officials and Corporate representatives.

    No input is ever allowed from anything other than corporate entities and their
    properties. It is a shame that the ‘consultation’ is over ,because I would love
    for you to see the reaction on faces if you were to perhaps ’suggest’ inviting
    someone like Jon. These ‘consultations’ are always one sided wherever they
    happen and it has nothing to do with our lack of organization.

    Dissent is not wanted, only a sycophantic chorus.

    To think otherwise is naive.

    See if you can get someone from our side invited.
    I dare you

16. Dreddsnik Says:
    October 6th, 2009 at 11:53 pm

    For some reason, blaming us for not being able to access a ‘coporate boys only’
    meeting is really sticking in my craw.

    I suspect this isn’t going anywhere different.

17. Henry Emrich Says:
    October 7th, 2009 at 12:59 am

    Billy:

    1. Thanks for the response. It was extremely well-reasoned — especially in comparison to the type of bullshit we get from p2p opponents on this – and other — boards. So yeah, some of us *do* have a bit of a hair-trigger reaction in response to what looks to us — correctly or not — as apologists for corporate misconduct.
    So please understand what’s going on with our reactions. Frankly (speaking solely for myself), the fact that you keep coming back and responding is a damn good sign.

    As to the other stuff:
    Personal attacks against Lily Allen? Let’s be honest here: SHE came out regurgitating every stupid industry cliche the labels have been using against p2p for decades, and then turns out to be a complete hypocrite with the mixtapes etc. Then she tried to weasel out of it, by claiming that it *wasn’t* really hypocrisy because she was “young and stupid”. Sorry, but she couldn’t even get the time-frame right about when she did the mixtapes.
    If she’d simply come out and said “that was then, but I changed my views” that *might* have been one thing, but her sad little tandrum/deleting the blog/threats to drop out of music don’t exactly bespeak any kind of nobility. It DOES bespeak a phenomenon Internet geeks describe as “butt-hurt”. Look it up. She decided to be all melodramatic because — surprise surpirse — somebody didn’t agree with her positions, and somebody else found out about the mixtapes etc.

    Quite frankly, I myself am in somewhat of a similar position to Lily, in that — as Jon and some others here could tell you — a few years ago I was VIOLENTLY opposed to the p2p thing, and believed everything the RIAA member labels say about it. I was completely ignorant of the history and original justification of copyright law, and — sadly — even bought into exactly the same “lottery mentality” that I warned against in the article.

    But Y’know what? I hung around, read up on some of the sources people recommended, and — most importantly — paid attention to what the labels were doing. That’s right, Billy: I changed from a hardcore opponent of p2p to whatever it is that I am, now.

    But Y’know what? I admit it. I don’t try to pawn off my previous anti-p2p stance as “I was young and stupid” or something like that. I also freely admit that I was wrong. Is Lily doing that? Nope. She’s being tearful over “abuse” that nobody can actually verify because SHE deleted the blog, so that we only have HER word on the matter.
    Not impressive, to say the least.

    But Y’know what? That’s all beside the poing: Lily Allen probably likes cute little kittens and rainbows and all, but that has NOTHING to do with the fact that she has chosen to be a corporate whore, urging draconian bullshit tactics to fight a “crisis” that isn’t even real.

    So pardon me for saying — yet again — FUCK Lily Allen (and the private corporate jet she flew in on.)

    As for the other thing (”that’s how democracy works”), I assume that’s your somewhat roundabout way of saying you were out-voted. But then, why aren’t you using your media connections to VOICE that dissent?

    But that’s also beside the point. What we’re discussing is the fact that you are on the board of directors of an organization that TALKS like it’s pro-p2p, and then “democratically” falls in line with the same corporations you claim to oppose.

    So go for it, Billy: Just in a “personal” capacity, off the record. The next time you’re interviewed, and the interview turns — as it surely will — to the FAC and throttling and such — maybe you could take thirty seconds to mention that YOU didn’t vote for it, even though your name is on it. You were outvoted.

    “Democracy” doesn’t mean that the losing side should just shut up. That’s why the U.S. supreme court justices who get outvoted issue dissent statements.

    Have fun reading/listening to the Lessig stuff. I don’t agree with everything he says (In particular, I think he really blew it on the Eldred decision), but he really does lay it out brilliantly.

    And rest assured that I, for one, will now talk to you directly.
    Good deal?

18. Henry Emrich Says:
    October 7th, 2009 at 1:08 am

    “2) I want copyright terms to be more reasonable – perhaps not in the exact way that you do – but I want the artist to have the power to say you can use my work for free as I did to someone this morning who emailed me to ask if they could quote a line from one of my songs in their book. I don’t feel that I should be paid for that, but I do want to retain the right to be credited in the footnotes and most importantly to have a legally enforceable veto on the context that my words are being used in – for instance if they should appear on a leaflet of a far right political party.”

    I’m pretty sure that at least here in the U.S., quoting a line would constitute “fair use”. I’m also pretty sure that you guys have an equivalent exemption over there (”Fair dealing”), so I’m not sure this person *would* have been legally required to get your permission for the quote.

    As to the other thing, let’s assume copyright terms WERE more reasonable (shorter), and one of your songs had been used by a right-wing rally or something. How hard is it to issue a statement stating that you *don’t* agree with that organization? The rock group “Heart” ran into something similar to this during the last election cycle: they didn’t like Sarah Palin using the song “Barracuda” at her rallies, so she got Gretchen Wilson to do it instead. But Y’know what? Everybody still knew that Heart weren’t McCain/Palin supporters.

19. Henry Emrich Says:
    October 7th, 2009 at 1:15 am

    Found it:

    “http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_law_of_the_United_Kingdom#Fair_dealing_and_other_exceptions”

    I don’t think you get to look magnanamous for “allowing” something that would have been legal anyway, but that’s just me.

    “s30.—(1) Fair dealing with a work for the purpose of criticism or review, of that or another work, or of a performance of a work, does not infringe copyright in the work, provided it is accompanied by a sufficient acknowledgement, and provided the work has actually been made available to the public.”

    Please clarify what this quotation was intended to do. Was it a criticism or review?
    If so, they they didn’t *need* your permission, Billy.

20. Henry Emrich Says:
    October 7th, 2009 at 1:30 am

    Everybody:

    Read this link. I think this might actually have some possibilities:

    http://questioncopyright.org/balanced_buyout

    This — or something like it — lets everybody win:

    1. The monopoly privilege is still there (assuming it’s neccesary at all, which is another issue).
    2. The public domain is immensely strengthened.
    3. After the initial copyright term, anybody can “free” the work by paying the price named by the rights-holder at time of renewal. Fixes a lot of problems with the current system, leave monopoly privileges available for those who think they need them, strengthens the public domain, and gives people a way to “leverage” stuff into the public domain, while guaranteeing that Rights-holders still get paid.

    Sounds pretty good. What do you all think of something like this as a possible reform?

    Because we all know the current system is unrecoverably fucked.

21. Billy Bragg Says:
    October 7th, 2009 at 4:54 am

    Henry,

    Just back from my gig, very late, but wanted to say thanks for your postings.

    On the Lily Allen issue, it was the guys posting shit like ’she can suck my dick’ etc that were, imho, out of order. There is a feeding frenzy mentality that can be unleashed on message boards, especially when someone is caught doing something wrong, that goes beyond simply making the point and borders on bullying. I don’t think your comments above fit into that category, but you know what I mean, I’m sure. She was wrong and she made bad PR mistakes, but she was a patsy for the industry. She took the hit while they walked away.

    I do use my media connections to voice my dissent. This from last weeks Guardian article:

    “The suppression of illegal filesharing is a long-term, highly expensive, technologically fraught strategy with serious implications for personal privacy. It is questionable whether any of the money saved will ever find its way to the artists who have suffered loss of income. 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. This is a war that no one can win.”

    That’s me telling the industry that I may have signed up for sanctions, but I don’t think they are going to work, that p2p should be left alone and rip off sites dealt with.

    And I can’t say that I didn’t vote for it, because I did. It was the best deal we could get from that room and it served our purpose of putting down a clear marker to govt and industry what we will fight disconnection and suspension. That’s how we got a disparate bunch of artists to oppose the corporate will. Its a small step, I admit, but one in the right direction, I believe.

    It’s a bit late for me to grasp the detail of what you’re saying about copyright, so if its okay with you, I’ll come back to this subject in the morning.

22. Crosbie Fitch Says:
    October 7th, 2009 at 5:55 am

    Billy, you say (if you’ll forgive me usurping your desired power to prevent me quoting you):

    2) I want copyright terms to be more reasonable – perhaps not in the exact way that you do – but I want the artist to have the power to say you can use my work for free as I did to someone this morning who emailed me to ask if they could quote a line from one of my songs in their book. I don’t feel that I should be paid for that, but I do want to retain the right to be credited in the footnotes and most importantly to have a legally enforceable veto on the context that my words are being used in – for instance if they should appear on a leaflet of a far right political party.

    It is natural to want more power than nature gave you. A lot of people do. This has been demonstrated to be the case throughout mankind’s history. However, in an egalitarian society we are all recognised as equals, as having no natural power over our fellow men as they have none over us. All we have power over are ourselves (and our children), our private property and our possessions within them.

    In order to protect people, to enable us to live in harmony as equals (instead of descending into power hierarchies), we empower a government. This protects our natural rights: our lives, our privacy, the truth of our actions, and preserves our liberty – the freedom to do anything that does not conflict with these.

    You have to recognise that copyright was an erroneous grant of unnatural power. The ability to prevent anyone else making a copy of your literary or artistic work does not exist in nature. This power or privilege was created in order for the crown to control the press, in the guise of enabling the press to in turn control pirates (aka seditionists).

    Some people, such as Lawrence Lessig, still believe that power should remain granted, but that it should be used more kindly, i.e. modulated through license. Such people also imply that the reproduction monopoly of copyright (with its threat of million dollar fines) is necessary to protect matters of truth (aka moral rights), to protect against plagiarism, misattribution, and misrepresentation.

    Actually, the unnatural reproduction monopoly is entirely distinct from the necessary protection of the truth concerning an artist’s works.

    So, without the privilege of copyright you still have the natural right to truth (aka moral rights, or les droits moraux).

    This means that even without being able to prohibit copies, people still can’t pass off your work as theirs, e.g. with a lack of attribution constituting implicit misattribution through context. It also means that your work cannot be used to imply, untruthfully, that you endorse a product or political viewpoint. In addition it also means people can’t alter your work and misrepresent it as yours (right to integrity). All these things involve dishonesty, impairment of the truth.

    Cultural liberty, free cultural exchange, means that we can quote from each other (without misattribution) without needing to obtain each other’s permission to do so. The notion of needing permission to quote what another has said is entirely due to copyright, a monopoly intended for the commercial exploitation of printers (not to gratify authors with unnatural power over their fellows).

    So, you need none of the power you’ve asked for.
    Without copyright you can STILL:
    1) Sell your work
    2) Prevent anyone stealing or copying your work (from your private property)
    3) Prevent anyone quoting from you whilst implying those quotes are their own (or of someone other than you).
    4) Prevent your work being used to insinuate your endorsement of something you haven’t endorsed.
    5) Prevent anyone editing your work and misrepresenting it as yours.

    However, without copyright:
    1) Everyone, including you, can make and sell copies or derivatives of your work without needing your permission, a license, or having to pay you any royalty.
    2) Given anyone can make them, there is unlikely to be much of a market for digital copies, e.g. MP3 files.

    What makes this reversion to nature so clearly inexorable is that people are already acting without consideration of copyright. Copyright doesn’t need to be abolished to achieve what is already happening (as though it had been abolished). Copyright only really needs to be abolished to remove the power for publishing corporations (labels) to bankrupt random families (or sever their Internet connections).

    Artists do not need power over their fellow men. Such power is not only unethical, but it was only ever intended for the press. The press is now an anachronism, as is its 18th century privilege.

23. Henry Emrich Says:
    October 7th, 2009 at 11:06 am

    Billy:

    “On the Lily Allen issue, it was the guys posting shit like ’she can suck my dick’ etc that were, imho, out of order. There is a feeding frenzy mentality that can be unleashed on message boards, especially when someone is caught doing something wrong, that goes beyond simply making the point and borders on bullying. I don’t think your comments above fit into that category, but you know what I mean, I’m sure. She was wrong and she made bad PR mistakes, but she was a patsy for the industry. She took the hit while they walked away.”

    None of which was to be unexpected in the least. The thing is, you get *used* to it. One of the beautiful aspects of the Net — and one of the things which differentiates it from any previous communications channel — is that it’s an extremely level playing field, without any real “barriers to entry”.

    This also means that it’s extremely easy, in the heat of the monent or just to fuck with somebody, to click reply, and blast somebody with the full venom that might not otherwise come across in a “letter to the editor” or some such. It’s *also* easy for people to just say stupid, inflammatory shit to stir up trouble. (Called “Trolling”, in internet slang, in case you wondered.)

    I have absolutely no doubt that some of that happened with Lily Allen, because it happens everywhere. The thing of it is: MOST people don’t get to play the dewy-eyed martyr about it, ESPECIALLY toward the “mainstream” media.

    As I said before, the fact that Lily Allen may love fluffy little kittens has absolutely no bearing on the fact that she was — and continues to be — a corporate mouthpiece, and WHATEVER your reasons for “supporting” her, it wasn’t a good move.

    “And I can’t say that I didn’t vote for it, because I did. It was the best deal we could get from that room and it served our purpose of putting down a clear marker to govt and industry what we will fight disconnection and suspension. That’s how we got a disparate bunch of artists to oppose the corporate will. Its a small step, I admit, but one in the right direction, I believe.”

    Oh, it’s a “small step” alright: toward what *they* wanted.

    We Americans have some experience with this pattern, unfortunately:
    1. Party A proposes something horrible.
    2. Party B “strenuously dissents” by proposing something slightly *less* horrible.
    C. A *slightly* watered-down version of party A’s original proposal gets passed.
    D. Party B calls it a “victory”.

    By supporting throttling (as opposed to disconnection), your organization *still* handed the corporate lobbyists everything they wanted on a silver platter. The fact that it wasn’t as *big* of a platter doesn’t make much difference. Comrpomise may sometimes be neccesary, but it’s also true that the “lesser” of two evils is *still evil*.
    The corporate lobbyists get what they want (the ability to fuck with people’s connectivity), their lackeys in government get what THEY want (tacit acknowledgement that p2p really *is* a ‘crisis’ requiring government intervention), but everybody else — music fans, internet users, musicians, etc. — get SCREWED.

    Sometimes ‘compromise’ doesn’t work, Billy: just look at Obama’s so-called “health-care reform” here in the U.S.
    He’s so goddamn eager to be ‘bipartisan’ that he’s allowing Republicans the opportunity for us to remain the *only* (supposedly) ‘developed” country without universal health care. (That’s a different topic, not going to get into it here).

    Hell, at least in France, Sarkoszy had to keep hammering the “3-strikes’ thing over and over, until he managed to make it stick.

    Sorry to come off as extremely cynical and contrarian and all, but I’m sure you get where I’m going here.
    The DMCA was touted as a “compromise”, too.

24. Dreddsnik Says:
    October 7th, 2009 at 11:10 am

    ” And I can’t say that I didn’t vote for it, because I did. It was the best deal we could get from that room and it served our purpose of putting down a clear marker to govt and industry what we will fight disconnection and suspension. ”

    So, let me get this straight ..

    You voted for potential sanctions that you don’t believe would work, because
    voting for something you don’t believe in is the best way to show that you
    will fight against the sanctions you voted for .

    Is that correct ?

    ” On the Lily Allen issue, it was the guys posting shit like ’she can suck my dick’ etc that were, imho, out of order. There is a feeding frenzy mentality that can be unleashed on message boards, especially when someone is caught doing something wrong, that goes beyond simply making the point and borders on bullying. I don’t think your comments above fit into that category, but you know what I mean, I’m sure. She was wrong and she made bad PR mistakes, but she was a patsy for the industry. She took the hit while they walked away. ”

    You are absolutely right on that. Comments like those are completely out of line.
    The majority of us wouldn’t stoop to that. But, since the blog was pulled, we’ll
    never know for sure if it was a massive pile of crude, or too much truth came
    out and needed to be hidden. All we have is her word on that, and I don’t
    think her word counts for a whole lot right now. Your industry is too good at
    making facts vanish to know for certain.

25. cqb Says:
    October 7th, 2009 at 2:52 pm

    I found this a disappointing article and overly aggressive given Billy Bragg’s openness. Billy doesn’t have to be here talking to a single one of us, but he is doing so and responding time after time, Hopefully he is learning a little each time he does, there has been several things he has said that I haven’t previously considered so its a two way thing, there is plenty of scope to find common ground.

    We haven’t won, despite your protestation in the article above. the RIAA had its first victories in court when presented with defendants willing to argue a case rather than default judgements , the Pirate bay lost its case against the MPAA or whoever it was (Sony, Vivendi etc I think). The *AA are making noises against usenet and nzb indexing sites. If you think we won you are sadly misguided.

    We have not yet lost though, I am grateful that Billy is here talking to us and is basically in agreement with us, p2p isn’t a threat. This is a golden opportunity where we can talk to someone with real potential and voice to help present p2p for what it really is.

    I think this might be a chance for a unified voice of reason to P2P where and when it counts. Lets give it a chance and not shoot ourselves in the foot.

    I’m not the most eloquent of people, but I do feel quite strongly about filesharing. I have over the years swapped music on cassette with friends, recorded music off the radio onto tape (even Mr Bragg’s tunes off the John Peel radio show, I recall he did several sessions) just like many people of the time. Billy seems to get that, it hasn’t killed the industry and bit-torrent won’t kill it either.

26. Billy Bragg Says:
    October 7th, 2009 at 4:29 pm

    Dreddsnik,

    “You voted for potential sanctions that you don’t believe would work, because
    voting for something you don’t believe in is the best way to show that you
    will fight against the sanctions you voted for .”

    Not quite. I voted for it because I believe that if we want to build a critical mass of artists prepared to challenge the labels monopoly, then we have to prove to our fellow performers that we are serious about these issues, that we want artists to be able to make a living – not billions of dollars – making music. If we had come out of our meeting in favour of your position, FAC would be branded by the labels as pro-pirate and as a result totally marginalised. We’d be popular on p2pnet, but no artists would take us seriously. In order to put our arguments to them, we first have to win their confidence.

    Henry,

    With regard to copyright freedom, here’s the perspective from my angle.

    If someone is using my music to make money, should I get a royalty? For instance, if a radio station draws listeners by playing my music and then sells advertising based on the number of listeners my music has drawn.

    Crosbie,

    “Without copyright you can STILL:
    1) Sell your work
    2) Prevent anyone stealing or copying your work (from your private property)
    3) Prevent anyone quoting from you whilst implying those quotes are their own (or of someone other than you).
    4) Prevent your work being used to insinuate your endorsement of something you haven’t endorsed.
    5) Prevent anyone editing your work and misrepresenting it as yours.”

    What sanction do I have over 3, 4 & 5 if there is no copyright law?

27. Dreddsnik Says:
    October 7th, 2009 at 8:32 pm

    ” Not quite. I voted for it because I believe that if we want to build a critical mass of artists prepared to challenge the labels monopoly, then we have to prove to our fellow performers that we are serious about these issues, that we want artists to be able to make a living – not billions of dollars – making music. If we had come out of our meeting in favour of your position, FAC would be branded by the labels as pro-pirate and as a result totally marginalised. We’d be popular on p2pnet, but no artists would take us seriously. In order to put our arguments to them, we first have to win their confidence. ”

    That still doesn’t make a whole lot of sense to me.
    Maybe I’m a simpleton, but I have never EVER voted in favor of something
    I don’t support, to win anyone’s ‘confidence’.

    ” FAC would be branded by the labels as pro-pirate and as a result totally marginalised. ”

    As ‘Featured Artists’ it would seem reasonable that by standing firm against
    something you don’t want to see happen, that would send a stronger message.

    As far as being popular on P2Pnet .. why do you keep doing that ?
    I realize we’re not as ‘big time’ as you, and I also realize that P2Pnet
    isn’t the whole of the world. The veiled snark isn’t necessary.

    It’s not the popularity on P2P net that you or anyone else should think of.
    It’s what you are telling the fans.
    Make the labels happy all you want but it won’t mean shit if the fans are
    turned away by such a stance. If you continue to send the message that
    you care more about what the labels want then what the fans want,
    then P2P net isn’t what’s going to sink you .. ask Metallica. hell
    ask Lilly Allen.

    If you REALLY believe that sanctions aren’t the answer, then that is the stance
    you should take. Don’t come here, say sanctions are wrong but you voted for
    them out of fear of ‘marginalization’. That’s the kind of thing that brings doubt
    to this man’s mind.

28. cqb Says:
    October 8th, 2009 at 4:34 am

    @Dreddsnik
    “That still doesn’t make a whole lot of sense to me. I have never EVER voted in favor of something
    I don’t support, to win anyone’s ‘confidence’.”

    You aren’t married are you, compromise is a basic requirement of life
    Sometimes there is no alternative but to take the lesser of two evils, ever heard the phrase “between a rock and a hard place” ?

    Mr Bragg has come across as exceedingly intelligent and insightful I for one am willing to take at face value his claim that on that day it was the very best they could do, without contradictory evidence the alternative is to blindly argue points that cannot be proven. He admits its not ideal and should be treated as a starting point, a step on a path to where we want to be. Sometimes you have no option but take a step backwards to be able to take two forward. If more artists become willing to listen to another voice than their record companies and that voice happens to be Billy (and hopefully similar opinion voices at FAC) then we can make progress.

29. Dreddsnik Says:
    October 8th, 2009 at 11:55 am

    ” You aren’t married are you, compromise is a basic requirement of life
    Sometimes there is no alternative but to take the lesser of two evils, ever heard the phrase “between a rock and a hard place” ?

    Yes, I am.
    21 yrs and 2 kids.
    Compromise is one thing.
    What BB describes is something a little different.

    My wife and I compromise which each other.
    We make decisions on what WE believe is right.

    We DON’T make decisions based on what our peers might think of us.
    That’s a lot closer to what BB describes, and not at all like compromise
    in a marriage.

    Doing something you know is wrong because you’re afraid of what your peers
    will think of you is something done by schoolchildren, and most adults grow
    out of that.

    ” Mr Bragg has come across as exceedingly intelligent and insightful I for one am willing to take at face value his claim that on that day it was the very best they could do ”

    Yes he has, to a point. It’s the little things that make me hesitate to take him at ‘face value’.
    Sometimes the most realistic face can still be a mask.

30. Billy Bragg Says:
    October 8th, 2009 at 3:24 pm

    Dredds,

    Sorry about the snark. It was not intended as a dig. I was simply using you guys as shorthand for your community. I think that’s the second time you’ve pulled me up for such language and I’ll try to curb it. You guys are understandably defensive, given the shit you’ve endured from the industry. However, I have to tell you that when Henry says “FUCK Lily Allen” as he did above, I am offended. He had already made his case against her forcefully enough without resorting to personal abuse. That just undermines the powerful points he made. Yeah, I know your community despise her for what she said, but she is still a human being. As are you. As am I. We all have feelings.

    To address the core point of your posts, the fact that I voted in favour of sanctions is not a’ little thing’ as you put it, and you and everybody else here are justified in your criticism of the choice I made. However, we have some way to go on the artists side before we can get people to understand that the industry does not always represent our best interests. What I’m hoping to gain from this dialogue are some facts about the benefits the p2p community that I can call on next time I get into a debate with a bunch of artists. At the moment all they have to go on is industry figures and PR propaganda. If we want to change that, then we need to talk directly to one another. I’ve been in transit for the past 24 hours, coming home from San Francisco, so I haven’t had time to read the thread on which Jon announced our plans, but I’ll be greatly disappointed if other artists don’t take the challenge that we have laid down to both your community and mine.

31. Dreddsnik Says:
    October 8th, 2009 at 4:15 pm

    ” Sorry about the snark. It was not intended as a dig. I was simply using you guys as shorthand for your community. I think that’s the second time you’ve pulled me up for such language and I’ll try to curb it. You guys are understandably defensive, given the shit you’ve endured from the industry. ”

    Thank you for that.
    I really do try to keep from coming off as an asshole and I fail at that sometimes.

    ” What I’m hoping to gain from this dialogue are some facts about the benefits the p2p community that I can call on next time I get into a debate with a bunch of artists. At the moment all they have to go on is industry figures and PR propaganda. If we want to change that, then we need to talk directly to one another. ”

    Agreed, I hope for the same thing.
    Both sides need to concentrate on dialogue and avoid ‘posturing’.

32. Dreddsnik Says:
    October 8th, 2009 at 4:19 pm

    ” However, I have to tell you that when Henry says “FUCK Lily Allen” as he did above, I am offended. ”

    I won’t apologize for Henry, but understand that what has been going on with
    the industry, and it’s methods of buying representation and using the court
    system as a hammer instead of a scale feels a lot like a big ‘Fuck You’ to
    the labels entire customer base, and Due Process as well.

    It’s very easy to give back what’s been given, and very difficult to fix
    what they have paid so much money to break.

    Trust.

33. Dreddsnik Says:
    October 8th, 2009 at 4:28 pm

    ” To address the core point of your posts, the fact that I voted in favour of sanctions is not a’ little thing’ as you put it, and you and everybody else here are justified in your criticism of the choice I made. ”

    Not a ‘little thing’ .. the easy thing.
    Standing up for what you really believe is the difficult, sometimes the most
    difficult, but it makes the strongest statement.

    I do appreciate the pressure though.

    During my playing time in the early to late 80’s with local acts, on two occasions,
    we were offered ‘Signing Statements’. I don’t remember the labels anymore,
    but was booted from both bands for refusing to sign them.

    It sucked, but apparently I was the only one who bothered to read them and
    understood what was really offered ( nothing ). I don’t regret it one bit.

34. Billy Bragg Says:
    October 8th, 2009 at 5:41 pm

    Dredds,

    You hit the nail on the head with your explanation of Henry’s outburst – its the industry that has done this to you, not Lily Allen. She hates the industry too. So why say what she said? Because, like many artists, she’s also scared of file-sharers. I don’t expect you to feel any sympathy for her, but I hope I was right to take the implication, from what you said at 4:19pm, that you recognise that your enemy is the industry, not the artist.

35. Dreddsnik Says:
    October 8th, 2009 at 7:56 pm

    ” that you recognise that your enemy is the industry, not the artist. ”

    Oh, absolutely.

    That’s kind of why the vote of approval of sanctions is so disturbing.

    If you wander over to Ray Beckermans site …

    http://recordingindustryvspeople.blogspot.com/

    You might discover that in spite of what you mav have been told by the label execs .. it’s not really
    going all that great for them. The one single court victory they have is pyrrhic at best. All the money
    the spent and that may be overturned, and even if it isn’t, there is no way in hell they are going to
    collect a cool million from a housemom. You’ll also get to eyeball all of the sleazy tactics, abuse of
    process, and downright dirty shenanigans they have been pulling, and finally after years, some of the
    judges are beginning to see the light, and requiring the RIAA lawyers to adhere to rules and provide
    evidence.

    If they can’t break rules and lie in court, what is left ?

    Pressuring the ISP’s to cut people off without having to go through any of the tricky ‘law’ shit or
    inconvenient Due Process bullshit.
    The FAC is basically signing off on a strategy to totally bypass the rights of the accused without benefit
    of a proper day in court.

    That’s not only wrong .. it’s disgusting, and the FAC backs it .. as a compromise ?

    That’s no compromise.

    Thats handing the heads of helpless individuals, many of whom NEVER SHARED ANY FILES but can’t afford to
    fight back. Tracing sharers by IP address only works in the movies. There are numerous examples over the
    years the litigation campaign has raged that IP tracing has been PROVEN to be wrong.
    Ask the network printer they sued ( true story ).

    That’s why I am so irritated at the FAC endorsing sanctions and cutoffs.

36. Dreddsnik Says:
    October 8th, 2009 at 8:02 pm

    Oh, BTW …

    Please don’t go by the Tenenbaum (sp) case.

    In my opinion, it has been the worst handled case I have ever seen by the pro p2p side.
    It is a total circus on both sides. Even Ray has been tempted to stop covering it because
    of the farce both sides are making out of it.

37. Jon Says:
    October 8th, 2009 at 8:56 pm

    @ Billy:

    Also see this – http://www.p2pnet.net/story/18413 and this http://www.p2pnet.net/story/22846 and maybe this – http://www.p2pnet.net/story/6283

    Cheers!

38. Henry Emrich Says:
    October 8th, 2009 at 10:39 pm

    Bragg:

    “When he says “fuck you, Lily Allen” I’m offended.”

    Your problem, not mine. Whether she has “feelings” or not doesn’t negate the fact that she:

    1. Trotted out every stupid cliche the corporate music industry has been attempting to use against p2pers for years.
    2. Attempted to weasel-word her way out of the whole “mixtapes” thing, instead of just taking the hit, and admitting that in terms of her current beliefs she was wrong.
    3. Threw a tandrum about how the “abuse has become too much” but conveniently deleted the blog — conveniently destroying ANY AND ALL EVIDENCE of such abuse, AS WELL as any other discussion, etc.
    4. Threw ANOTHER tantrum about how she was going to “Pull a MOOP” (thus copying one of South Park’s funniest episodes, as I pointed out).
    5. Played the “Weepy, foul-mouthed” martyr so that you guys would throw “overwhelming” support behind exactly what her corporate paymasters wanted to do, anyway.

    See what we’re dealing with, here? As I said before, we all KNOW she has “feelings”: she “feels” the necessity to be a whiny corporate whore, throw tantrums, and destroy any evidence independent observers could have used to JUDGE whether there was “abuse” or not.

    I have no sympathy for that, Billy. In fact, it bespeaks an EXTREME lack of character. What next? I suppose I should stay awake nights because Bush might have been offended when protesters said “fuck Bush”, in regard to the Iraq War?

    And why YOU would be offended over any of what I say about Lily Allen is absolutely beyond me. She’s a corporate shill, and whether she does such shilling in a “teary and eloquent” manner doesn’t change that fact in the least.

    But I *will* compliment you on one thing:
    Great idea trying to take the focus off the points I raise, and make it about whether I — or anybody else — was “nice” to Lily Allen.
    Almost makes up for the fact that the corporate industry-types played you FAC guys for fools.

    Cqb:
    Exactly how hard is it to understand the difference between “de jure” and “de facto?”
    “De Jure” is basically whatever is on the books at the time — whether it’s “enforceable” in any meaningful sense of the term, or not.
    “De Facto” is what’s ACTUALLY happening, irrespective of whether it may be ‘illegal’ or not.

    For example, race-based segregation may have been “De Jure” legal in Missisippi 1965, but mass refusal by Blacks to OBEY such laws (by staging “sit ins”, boycotts, marches, and suchlike) meant that, “De Facto”, — in fact, in reality — segregation was rendered completely unenforceable in any meaningful sense of the term — fire-hoses and police dogs notwithstanding.

    Eventually, the laws were CHANGED to reflect what people were already doing — and going to CONTINUE to do.
    THAT’S what I mean by the fact that we’ve already won.

    The corporate labels and their cronies in government are desperately fighting a “battle” that they’ve already lost, simply because vast — and growing — numbers of folks, PLANET-WIDE, refuse to even obey the bought-and-paid-for laws that are on the books NOW.

    Personally — and this is just me, mind you — I don’t see Billy’s participation here as some kind of magnanimous gesture, like you seem to. I see it as a really savvy move by someone who has managed to “game” the current system in his favor, sees the complete futility of the corporate labels’ approach, and — along with a few other forward-thinkers — wants to get in on the “new paradigm” early enough to have a say in how that paradigm shift develops.

    Because whether the corporate labels, Lilly allen, FAC, or ANYBODY ELSE likes it or not, the paradigm HAS already changed, radically and irrevocably, and any attempt to “fight” such changes will only SPEED the changes, as more and more people become enraged, and start to think outside the corporate-media box.

    (No Offense, Billy — you probably don’t like me much, but I still figure you should read the Lessig book.)

    L8r, Y’all!

39. Henry Emrich Says:
    October 8th, 2009 at 10:43 pm

    Note: “Pull a MOOP” is my term, not hers — in the south park episode I keep mentioning, Stan and Kyle and the guys formed a group called “Moop”, became alarmed about ‘illegal’ downloading and how — despite the fact that they were complete unknowns at the time — it was a “threat to their careers”. Then, they stage a boycott — they won’t play until downloading stops.
    That’s why I call Lily Allen’s petulant little threat — which has since been retracted — about how she was going to drop out of music — “pulling a MOOP”.

    Just wanted to clarify, for anybody who hasn’t seen the episode (which I still think is funny as hell.)

40. Henry Emrich Says:
    October 8th, 2009 at 11:07 pm

    Billy:

    “You hit the nail on the head with your explanation of Henry’s outburst – its the industry that has done this to you, not Lily Allen. She hates the industry too. So why say what she said? Because, like many artists, she’s also scared of file-sharers. I don’t expect you to feel any sympathy for her, but I hope I was right to take the implication, from what you said at 4:19pm, that you recognise that your enemy is the industry, not the artist.”

    I’m gonna try to be nice here, and give Lily the benefit of the doubt:

    1. She “hates’ The industry, and knows she’s getting screwed by them.
    2. She is *also* “afraid of file-sharers” (even though SHE WAS ONE HERSELF, as of 2006.)
    3. In order to be “protected” from file-sharers, she doesn’t MERELY fall in line behind the labels’ draconian schemes, she ALSO becomes a vocal ADVOCATE of such schemes — the anti-p2p poster-girl, if you will.

    And this is supposed to make her look GOOD to any of us, Billy?

    Follow this link (trust me, it’s not as off-topic as it might seem):

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lynndie_England

    Now understand very carefully what I’m going to say next:
    The fact that under non-prison camp related circumstances Lynndie England might be a truly wonderful person does NOT excuse the fact that of what she did.
    The undeniable fact that she — like everybody else here in the U.S. — has been trained to be “afraid” of the prisoners at Abu Ghraib — hell, Muslims/arabs/”furriners” generally — is ALSO no excuse, and perilously thin justification for what she did.

    No, I’m not “comparing” the scope of Lily’s idiocy to what Lynndie Allen did, but the principle is the same:
    If Lily’s so scared of the ‘threat’ posed by p2p that she becomes a vocal mouthpiece for an organization she ‘hates’, then that’s fucking cowardly beyond comprehension, and deserves NO SYMPATHY WHATSOEVER.

    And to add insult to injury, SHE USED TO BE A P2P’er herself!

    Heh: you’ll probably call this an “outburst”, too.

    Bye, Billy!

41. cqb Says:
    October 9th, 2009 at 4:29 am

    @henry
    “Cqb:
    “Exactly how hard is it to understand the difference between “de jure” and “de facto?””

    Actually, when explained what it is, very simple. But like anything that is only after you KNOW that. Your attitude is aggressive and somewhat offensive even in pointing that out, never mind previously.

42. cqb Says:
    October 9th, 2009 at 4:30 am

    @Henry
    “Eventually, the laws were CHANGED to reflect what people were already doing — and going to CONTINUE to do. THAT’S what I mean by the fact that we’ve already won.”

    Is that why we are seeing moves against p2p escalating at the moment, because we have won.
    Is that why governments around the world are moving *against* us with 3strikes in various countries, again you are way off the mark if you think we won.

43. cqb Says:
    October 9th, 2009 at 4:36 am

    @Henry
    “Personally — and this is just me, mind you — I don’t see Billy’s participation here as some kind of magnanimous gesture, like you seem to. I see it as a really savvy move by someone who has managed to “game” the current system in his favor, sees the complete futility of the corporate labels’ approach, and — along with a few other forward-thinkers — wants to get in on the “new paradigm” early enough to have a say in how that paradigm shift develops.”

    From what I know of Billy he has *always* been quite political and vocal, this is not new in the least. Its actually not at all surprising that it should be him making this attempt to reach across, and I for one do not want to be so blind as to try something new to reach a resolution, everything before has failed more people are getting prosecuted and more laws are coming into place against p2p, I don’t want *your* victory, I’d like to see what Billy and Jon can do with our support.

44. cqb Says:
    October 9th, 2009 at 5:18 am

    @Dreddsnik

    “There are numerous examples over the years the litigation campaign has raged that IP tracing has been PROVEN to be wrong. Ask the network printer they sued ( true story ).”

    Just to clarify, the printer (and other devices) wasn’t sued, it was issued a DMCA takedown notice, the full paper is here: http://dmca.cs.washington.edu/

45. Henry Emrich Says:
    October 9th, 2009 at 5:30 am

    “Actually, when explained what it is, very simple. But like anything that is only after you KNOW that. Your attitude is aggressive and somewhat offensive even in pointing that out, never mind previously.”

    Oh goody gumdrops, now we get to watch YOU get all dewy-eyed because of how I worded something. How nice.
    How very, very precious of you, as well.

    Sorry to tell you this, but I’m not a big fan of Tennessee Williams, so your Blanch Dubois imitation doesn’t cut it with me.
    I’m not attempting to be “argumentative”, just stating the fact that there is a difference between “de facto” and “de jure”. If you didn’t like “how” I made the statement, quite frankly that’s your problem, not mine.
    Trust me, if I wanted to be “argumentative” — much less downright abusive, I could open up a can of Internet-whupass that (judging from your reaction to an innocent comment on my part) would probably leave you in tears. Just go read the “Sam I Am” stuff, and it’ll probaly become obvious to you that I was in *no* way explicitly trying to hurt your feelings.
    So don’t even try to play martyr with me, it ain’t gonna work.

    “Is that why we are seeing moves against p2p escalating at the moment, because we have won.
    Is that why governments around the world are moving *against* us with 3strikes in various countries, again you are way off the mark if you think we won.”

    Wow, talk about your inane hairsplitting:
    Of COURSE the corporate lobbyists and their cronies are trying to buy themselves anti-p2p bullshit. The REAL point — which you didn’t actually address by the way — is whether any such “moves” will actually work:

    The answer — as anybody who’s been paying attention thus far, is “no.”

    We — p2p/copyright reform advocates *HAVE* already won, merely by disobeying a monopoly privilege BOUGHT AND PAID FOR BY CORPORATE LOBBYISTS, en masse. We continue to *win* by — guess what — continuing to do so.
    If you want to think Billy Bragg or any of his “mates” are doing what they’re doing as some kind of magnanimous gesture, then by all means, feel free to be totally mistaken.

    As I said before — and pardon me if this sounds ‘argumentative’ — NONE of the bullshit these corporate lobbyists are buying themselves (3-strikes, etc.) will actually “work”, because people simply will NOT obey it.

    Lemme try again: remember “Grey Tuesday?”
    1. Dangermouse creates a “mashup” album combining Jay-Z’s black album, and the Beatles’ White album.
    2. It gets put on the net (rather than remaining obscure, and only circulating among his circle of friends.)
    3. It becomes a sensation, and ends up strewn to all hell and gone over the net, and makes Dangermouse an overnight celebrity (even getting rave reviews from mainstream media-type reviewers).
    4. Sony attempts to kill it, via “cease and desist” orders.
    5. GREY TUESDAY: Something like 150 websites mirror the Grey Album as a PROTEST, and to ensure that Sony doesn’t get their way.

    Result: Album proliferates like mad, Sony’s attempt at “cease and desist” censorship rendered impotent, and Dangermous gets to produce an album with Beck (”The Information”.)

    So anybody whose actually been paying attention has already realized that any attempt to stop (or even slightly impact) the p2p phenomenon is foredoomed to failure. Or do you actually dispute anything I’ve said (as opposed to merely whining about how “argumentative” I worded it?

    They’re panicking. They know full well that the p2p thing can’t be stopped because there’s a significant proportion of folks that will simply REFUSE TO OBEY, and systematically “break” everything they try to do. YOU can believe that trembling in awe of the overwhelming corporate power of the labels, and rhapsodizing about how wonderfully magnanimous it is that Billy Bragg would condescend to dialog with us, but that doesn’t change the fact that — absent corporate lobbyists and their idiotic lackeys in government (who can’t realistically even DO anything substantive against p2p at this point), the corporate megaliths have ABSOLUTELY NO CHANCE of success.

    THey’ve been “check-mated” for ten years, and the more forward-looking ones (Like Bragg) are finally realizing it.
    Billy doesn’t want to end up on the same trash-heap as Lars Ulrich and Lily Allen, is all.

    Gee willickers, I really hope this didn’t come off “argumentative” and make you cry or anything.

46. cqb Says:
    October 9th, 2009 at 6:50 am

    @Henry

    So in your orginal post… “We’ve already won”.. is meant to convey the extra couple of thousand words you have used to clarify the statement ? Rhetorical question don’t bother to reply.

    I’m very sorry Henry for not being born with your massive intellect, that I learn as I go through life rather than as apparently expected, to understand your implied meaning without you stating it.

    I am not going to argue further with you, as its all semantics and frankly you appear more interested in taking the pi** than discussing. You do not have to be rude or condescending to speak to someone or put across a point of view, helping people to understand your perspective is how you progress, but if you think anyone will warm to your opinions through insult and insinuation I think you should reconsider.

    For my own part, I may not be as eloquent as you but I try to maintain manners and respect. I am also more than happy to concede a point if shown my own is incorrect, as I did with Dreddsnik just yesterday, on your point of winning the war it is clear we will not agree at this time, I cannot see the point in continuing our discussion here.

47. Robert Says:
    October 9th, 2009 at 6:55 am

    @Henry,
    Sometimes man, your phrasing is overly and unnecessarily aggressive. It appears you don’t care about that either, but maybe you can remember some time ago when Surfer was answering people’s legitimate questions with facts wrapped in generous amounts of unwarranted attitude?

    When you do that, you lose the point you were trying to make! You invoke emotion in people rather than logic and reasoning. Effectively, you’re just pissing people off needlessly because they won’t reason through your arguments. How can you reason through when you’ve been bitchslapped for questioning or challenging someone’s views?

    I don’t believe that is your intent, instead maybe you are unleashing frustrations from dealing with various people upon anyone and everyone who chooses to write any comment to anything you write. I’ve read the Sam I Am stuff and you started off usually nice or moderately nice, and then Sam continued and started attacking, so you really let him have it.

    It seems though that lately you’ve been launching attack-laden “defacto” statements pretty much exclusively. Are you alright? Really frustrated? Or is there some secret intent you have that I have yet to figure out, some sort of super creative idea that will change the anti-p2p attitude with… spikes rather than logic and reason?

    In the end, Henry, if CPQ is already complaining he/she has now the option of ignoring your comments, whether valid or not, but that also means all the knowledge you are trying to share is going nowhere. Meanwhile, many others are viewing what is happening and are likely going to react the same, and avoid your posts.

    In the end, what are you trying to do? Are you trying to work with the anti-p2p group and educate them in the errors of their ways? Or are you just trying to scare them off of this site, so they can continue supporting labels and you can continue trashing artists that support labels’ decisions, all the while nothing changes?

    You can give any kind of response you want, or none at all. It’s entirely up to you, just remember how it comes across and what your overall goal is. Alienation of people is never a good thing, you actually do have the ability to legitimately win people like Billy Bragg or even Lily Allen over to your side, but you won’t do that with attacks that’s for sure.

48. Jon Says:
    October 9th, 2009 at 7:17 am

    @ Henry:

    It’d be a good idea to tune in to what Robert is saying, and not just with respect to cqb. Robert means well and he makes sense.

    Your words can be made to bite without savaging.

    I mean well too.

    Cheers!

49. cqb Says:
    October 9th, 2009 at 7:19 am

    @Robert
    You put it so much better, thank you.

50. Dreddsnik Says:
    October 9th, 2009 at 11:38 am

    ” For my own part, I may not be as eloquent as you but I try to maintain manners and respect. I am also more than happy to concede a point if shown my own is incorrect, as I did with Dreddsnik just yesterday, on your point of winning the war it is clear we will not agree at this time, I cannot see the point in continuing our discussion here. ”

    Whether you agree or not.
    Henry’s right.

    Absolutely nothing they do will stop the sharing. Nothing.
    Every protection .. broken.
    Every site shut down .. 3 more go up.
    start packet snooping .. massive innovation in packet encryption happens, snooping rendered useless.
    IP spoofing, currently only useable by the skilled, will soon be easy to do by ‘everyman’.

    Even if they go so far as to cut it all off it will go underground so deep no one will touch it.

    That’s the point that he’s trying to get across.
    Making something ‘against the law’ doesn’t make the act magically stop.
    We may never win the ‘Law’ over, but the sharing will NEVER be stopped not matter what they do.

    The truth still exists even if you close your eyes and plug your ears.

51. Robert Says:
    October 9th, 2009 at 11:45 am

    @Dreddsnik:
    Understood, all we were requesting is he remove a lot of the emotional provocation.

    Your explanation was short and sweet and didn’t put anyone on the defensive. That’s all we were trying to remind Henry of.

    We still need to wake up the artists to the label BS, that involves communicating with them. Billy Bragg is at least trying to see things from our perspective, even if he has glasses supplied by the labels. If you detect those glasses are interfering you can constructively get him to switch to contact lenses, ditching the scratched glass lenses, and maybe, just maybe, other artists will follow suit.

    Then we can actually have the artists on our side, maybe then push the governments to our side or closer at least.

    Even if driven underground and “you can’t stop it” at least if we can reduce the legal ramifications we won’t have so many people being bullied around. That’s what we hope to achieve! We hope to reduce the p2p casualties and take out the RIAA radar so they are flying blind and can do no more damage.

52. Dreddsnik Says:
    October 9th, 2009 at 11:55 am

    ” Is that why we are seeing moves against p2p escalating at the moment, because we have won.
    Is that why governments around the world are moving *against* us with 3strikes in various countries, again you are way off the mark if you think we won. ”

    As a matter of fact .. yes.
    They are starting to lose ground in court, so they have to go to their paid off
    government officials.

    If that doesn’t work they’ll take their slaves and work them into a fear frenzy so
    they support ridiculous legislations and whine to the fans about going broke, so
    broke they have to drive a Lexus instead of a Porsche.

    They keep at it because they are stupid, constantly beating their greedy heads against
    a rock. To them, a law doesn’t work the way they planned, by a new one. They are
    like the Black Knight in Monty Pythons ‘The Holy Grail’. As I said above, it won’t matter,
    because no one will stop. They’ll just create millions of ‘criminals’.

53. Dreddsnik Says:
    October 9th, 2009 at 11:59 am

    ” Understood, all we were requesting is he remove a lot of the emotional provocation. ”

    Henry is Henry.
    The more you try to make him be someone else,
    the more he will be ‘Henry’.

    The ‘Bad Cop’ is just as necessary as the ‘Good Cop’.

54. Billy Bragg Says:
    October 9th, 2009 at 12:06 pm

    Henry,

    You kinda got hold of the wrong end of my comment about your abuse of Lily Allen. You really didn’t need to reiterate all your criticisms of her and her behaviour. I accept those points. My argument was with your behaviour and frankly, trying to avoid the criticism by saying its my problem not yours sucks. How would you feel if I countered your criticism of the FAC vote with the same dismissive response?

    I respect your points and attempt to answer them honestly. I felt that your article and the subsequent exchanges between us on 6th/7th October were very reasonable. Where did all this anger come from??

55. Dreddsnik Says:
    October 9th, 2009 at 1:54 pm

    ” Where did all this anger come from?? ”

    I can’t soeak for Henry, but THIS really pisses me off ……

    ” Pressuring the ISP’s to cut people off without having to go through any of the tricky ‘law’ shit or
    inconvenient Due Process bullshit.
    The FAC is basically signing off on a strategy to totally bypass the rights of the accused without benefit
    of a proper day in court.

    That’s not only wrong .. it’s disgusting, and the FAC backs it .. as a compromise ? ”

    REALLY pisses me off.

    Some of us express it differently.
    Some avoid addressing it at all .

56. Billy Bragg Says:
    October 9th, 2009 at 2:01 pm

    Dredds,

    Trust me, FAC has signed off on nothing. Our trump card is that we will ONLY support sanctions with due process. No due process, no support.

57. Dreddsnik Says:
    October 9th, 2009 at 4:29 pm

    ” We will ONLY support sanctions with due process. No due process, no support. ”

    Really ?

    And what makes you think the industry that has lied to artists and cheated them,
    year after year with impunity will adhere to that ?
    What sort of ‘Due Process’ have the mentioned to you ?

    Find an IP, call a judge, shut it off ?
    I don’t think you fully understand that IP tracking is rarely reliable, and is starting to fail them in court.
    That’s why they want you to sign off on this.

    It’s a large fishnet, unfortunately more dolphins than tuna will be caught and have no legal recourse,
    because they won’t have nearly the monetary resources to PROVE THEIR INNOCENCE.

    Besides, as has been pointed out, this will fail for the same reason every other measure has failed.
    Sanctioning will only force rapid progress in the fields of IP spoofing, anonymization, and protocol
    encryption. The internet community historically has ALWAYS been one step ahead, and always will be.

    And, to what end, and for what reason ?

    It has been proven that a download is not a lost sale.
    It has been proven that downloading has zero effect on sales.
    Those that tell you otherwise are misinformed or lying, so you must ask yourself,
    ‘what are they REALLY after’ ?

    It’s definitely not YOUR interests they are looking out for.
    What Lilly got is a small taste of what every artist that supports sanctions will get.
    Those that support sanctions will get to see first hand what lost sales really feel like.

    You have no trump card, that’s an illusion they allow you to keep.
    You will lose far more than you will gain.

58. Billy Bragg Says:
    October 9th, 2009 at 9:11 pm

    The industry in the UK want the ISP’s to suspend their customers account on an accusation of file-sharing. That is contrary to our laws. People have to be proven guilty before they can be punished. There are already plenty of laws on the statute book in England that allow the labels to go after file-sharers, but they don’t want to do that because it takes time, money and is counter-productive in PR terms. That’s why they want the ISP’s to do it.

    So by siding with consumer groups, civil liberty activists and legislators in support of due process, we believe we can stop the legislation.

    Dredds, we formed the FAC because we know that the industry don’t represent our best interests, because we know that one download does not equal one lost sale, because we know that downloading has no effect on sales. I know that there is no technical solution to this problem because the internet community is always one step ahead.

    We may well lose more than we gain, but we will gain nothing if we do not engage with the labels, the ISPs, the govt, fellow artists and people like you

59. Henry Emrich Says:
    October 10th, 2009 at 2:28 am

    ” Henry is Henry.
    The more you try to make him be someone else,
    the more he will be ‘Henry’.
    The ‘Bad Cop’ is just as necessary as the ‘Good Cop’.”

    Dred gets it. Notice also that he’s not trying to psychoanalyze me. If any of you seriously think that the reason I’m such a colossal prick sometimes is because my Mom didn’t breast-feed me long enough or something, then you have worse problems than I do.

    Cqb: Quit taking everything I say so damned personally. This IS NOT ABOUT YOU. Quit Trying to think that I’m deliberately starting something with you, because I’m not. Also stop with all the false modesty (”I may not be as eloquent as you, but….” etc.)

    “The FAC is basically signing off on a strategy to totally bypass the rights of the accused without benefit
    of a proper day in court. That’s not only wrong .. it’s disgusting, and the FAC backs it .. as a compromise ? ”

    AGAIN, Dred gets this. Despite what Billy and Cqb may want to believe, a *slightly* watered-down version of what the corporate labels were going to do anyway isn’t any sort of “compromise” — it’s a total capitulation.

    Your “Trump card” is “no due process, no sanctions”, Billy?
    Obviously you haven’t been watching the way these trials unfold, have you, Billy?

    The TPB judge’s membership in a corporate copyright-lobbying group not being viewed as a “conflict of interest” doesn’t seem like “due process” to me, Billy. The “Eldred” decision basically handing the labels perpetual copyright on the installment plan doesn’t seem like “due process” either.

    “Some of us express it differently.
    Some avoid addressing it at all .”

    And there’s the rub, isn’t it?
    Instead of just admitting that you completely and utterly caved in to corporate pressure with the sanctions thing, YOU try to turn the debate into being about how Lily Allen has feelings, and you’re offended because someone — rightly — described her as a corporate whore.

    Not gonna work. I’m pretty sure Jammie Thomas would come across every bit as “tearful and eloquent” as precious little Lily Allen. The only difference between them is that one is an absurd, vacuous celebrity flash in the pan, and the other is a disabled woman whose had her life destroyed because of blatant corporate greed.

    Fine, I’ll admit it. I purposely set out to make Cqb cry him/herself to sleep because I’m a mean, evil bastard. I also like to burn ants with a magnifying glass while laughing maniacally.

    Think whatever you want. Fall all over yourselves trying to portray the FAC thing as some kind of real “reform”. FAC’s “trump card” is about as substantive as Obama’s “change you can believe in”, and the fact that he keeps trying to make this discussion about poor wittle Lily Allen’s *feelings* just proves it.

    I’m honestly not trying to attack you — or anybody else, Billy. What I *am* trying to do is wrap my mind around how you can actually believe that what you guys at the FAC did represents some kind of strategic genius move. “We resisted the labels by giving them *almost* everything they wanted!”.

    Sure, Billy. What’s really sad about this whole debacle is that we get to see your *real* colors:
    Seems like it’s pretty easy for celebrities to *talk* about curbing corporate misconduct and “speaking truth to power” and all that happy, hippy bullshit, but then they go and hand those corporations pretty much everything they wanted.

    Just like Google: “We’re not evil (chinese censorship notwithstanding)”

    Are any of you (except maybe Dred) getting it by now?

    I don’t personally give two liquidy shits about Lily Allen’s “feelings”. Frankly, if she chooses to be a corporate whore (for an industry you also claim she ‘hates’), then she DESERVED some sharpness. What is it with you celebrities? Are you so used to people falling over themselves to get your autograph that you get “offended” when somebody fails to kiss your ass?

    The FAC “trump card” was a complete fuckup whether you want to admit it or not, and has PROBABLY damaged the situation pretty severely, because it’s demonstrated a new way for celebrities to kiss corporate ass without SEEMING to do so.

    And your “personal, off-the-record” statement with Jon is just another facet of that.

    Have you read the book yet, Billy? Or are you too traumatized over poor little Lily’s “feelings”?

    Get over yourselves.

60. Henry Emrich Says:
    October 10th, 2009 at 2:55 am

    “When you do that, you lose the point you were trying to make! You invoke emotion in people rather than logic and reasoning. Effectively, you’re just pissing people off needlessly because they won’t reason through your arguments. How can you reason through when you’ve been bitchslapped for questioning or challenging someone’s views?”

    Where exactly did anybody get “bitchslapped” for challenging my views?

    Billy has repeatedly tried to make this into a discussion about whether he’s “offended” at how poor Little Lily Allen was treated by some meanies — in a blog that SHE destroyed.

    Cqb is accusing me of being “argumentative” simply because I explained something in a way he didn’t like.

    Let’s talk about that:

    Let’s talk about his “clarification” to Dredd about how the printer “wasn’t sued, it was issued a DMCA takedown notice”.
    Talk about condescention — it’s right there.
    The only way he could have made it MORE condescending is if he’d corrected Dred’s spelling.

    If you want to deal with “logic and reason”, deal with the fact that FAC’s strategy basically involves falling right in line behind the labels they claim to be resisting. Sounds “logical” to me. (On a related note, I trust everyone is just dazzled by all of Obama’s “change we can belileve in — especially in regard to health-care reform.)
    You don’t get the comparison, I’m not going to bother clarifying it, because Cqb or Robert will just accuse me of being “argumentative” again.

    Billy: our dialog a few days ago WAS fruitful and informative, and we can get that back.
    Just try to avoid a few things:

    1. Don’t try to make Lily Allen out as a martyr.
    2. Don’t think I’m going to give a shit about the petulant tantrums — er, I mean “feelings” — of wealthy celebrities who choose to be corporate lapdogs. (Actually, I bet Lars Ulrich cried himself to sleep because of those Metallica parody flash videos, too.)

    If you stop trying to make Lily Allen into some sort of “victim”, then we’re cool.
    Now go read the Lessig book, Damnit!

61. Henry Emrich Says:
    October 10th, 2009 at 3:14 am

    Billy:

    “Dredds, we formed the FAC because we know that the industry don’t represent our best interests, because we know that one download does not equal one lost sale, because we know that downloading has no effect on sales. I know that there is no technical solution to this problem because the internet community is always one step ahead.”

    1. If you “know that the industry doesn’t represent” your best interests, don’t offer their newest lapdog “overwhelming” support, and don’t get in bed with ANY version of their 3-strikes scheme.

    2. If you know that downloads don’t affects sales, then why act like they DO, by siding with the labels’ anti-’piracy’ efforts? If you *know* that the whole justification for the 3-strikes bullshit is a corporate strawman, then why the fuck did you sign off on it, even as a “strategic” move?

    3. If you “know that know technical solution will solve the problem because the internet community is one step ahead”, then why sign off on a measure you *already know* will fail, to combat something that you don’t even believe is a problem in the first place?

    If p2p isn’t a “problem” — like you keep claiming — then why act as if it IS a problem, even as a “compromise?”

    Is it because that was the “best you could get from that room?” If that’s true, then what you’re basically saying is that everybody else in the FAC has swallowed the corporate propaganda. That’s a “reform” organization, Billy?

    Then you say that WE should understand that Lily Allen just because a corporate lapdog because she’s “afraid of p2p”. Considering that your “best deal” over at the FAC was to sign onto a *slight* modification of 3-strikes (that you’ve already ADMITTED you knew had no chance of actually working), then that at least strongly implies that the other members of FAC are likely to do exactly the same thing under “pressure”.

    That’s not something worth supporting at all, Billy.
    Think of it this way:
    Sonny Bono became a corporate sock-puppet when he threw his support behind the most recent U.S. copyright extension. The fact that he completely misunderstood what copyright was actually for, and believed that it should last “forever minus 1 day” doesn’t change that.

    He was simply inexcusably ignorant, and mistaken, and his corporate paymasters exploited two things:
    1. His total misunderstanding of the history and justification of copyright
    2. His celebrity narcissism. It’s easy not to give a shit about how the public domain is important, what longer and longer copyright terms are going to do to the rest of the culture, etc. etc., when you’re surrounded by lackeys and yes-men, and a “celebrity”-worshipping culture that basically fawns over you like living gods.
    It’s EASY….just not excusable.

    Just go read the Lessig book, and stop trying to get me — or anybody else — to get all dewy-eyed over poor little Lily Allen and how “abused” she was in that blog she conveniently destroyed.

    There: was THAT less “argumentative?”

62. cqb Says:
    October 10th, 2009 at 5:38 am

    @Henry
    Ignoring the most of that diatribe, lets deal with…

    ” 3. If you “know that know technical solution will solve the problem because the internet community is one step ahead”, then why sign off on a measure you *already know* will fail, to combat something that you don’t even believe is a problem in the first place?
    If p2p isn’t a “problem” — like you keep claiming — then why act as if it IS a problem, even as a “compromise?””

    You are preaching to the converted I believe. Billy does not want sanctions, the FAC board seemingly doesn’t want sanctions, they brough in experts to explain why sanctions wouldn’t work at that fateful meeting. Sadly the FAC is a collective voice of many people, and those people on that night did not listen to the experts and still wanted sanctions. By the end of the night disconnections were off, but the support for sanctions meant that a lesser evil was settled upon, that of reducing bandwidth.

    Billy doesn’t want sanctions, the FAC doesn’t want sanctions. How about you go and talk to every artist that believes sanctions will work and sort it out yourself, apparently its easy.

    and as for…
    “Fine, I’ll admit it. I purposely set out to make Cqb cry him/herself to sleep because I’m a mean, evil bastard. I also like to burn ants with a magnifying glass while laughing maniacally.”

    I’ve been online since 1995 (or 94) prior to that I payed through the nose per minute to use BBS’s, I’ve met many many people through IRC and forums. People like you don’t make me cry, your attitudes just make me sad. I am not alone in finding your manner inane and your claims that “its your problem” egotistical, but whatever… I am at a point where I barely read what you write, I just scan for my name in your replies or if something caught my eye, I’m now at a point where I won’t even do that.. Congratulations.

63. Jon Says:
    October 10th, 2009 at 9:00 am

    @ Henry:

    In the interests of accuracy, Jammie Thomas-Rasset isn’t disabled. You’re thinking of Tanya Andersen. Jammie’s life, and the lives of her children and husband, have definitely been seriously disrupted in a manner far worse than anything Lily Allen is likely to suffer, but it hasn’t been destroyed. She’s a brave woman who’s determined to see her way through the disaster heaped on her by the music labels in the interests of protecting their ‘copyrights’. Tanya is, however, disabled. But she fought and fought, and is still fighting. http://www.p2pnet.net/story/18485

    Cheers!

64. Dreddsnik Says:
    October 10th, 2009 at 10:47 am

    ” The industry in the UK want the ISP’s to suspend their customers account on an accusation of file-sharing. That is contrary to our laws. People have to be proven guilty before they can be punished. ”

    Sure.
    It’s the same here, and yet somehow this still goes on.

    In the US it works because of differences between Civil and Criminal trials.

    In a Criminal trial the plaintiff must have concrete evidence and prove beyond any reasonable doubt.
    In a CIVIL trial, they only have to show more ‘More likely than not’ and the evidence rules are much
    more lax. At one point they even admitted that it was too hard to prove their case so the judge should
    just grant them their wish because they said it was so.
    It’s surprising how many of these cases seemed to be giving the RIAA exactly that.

    Are the rules as different in Civil court where you’re at ?
    If they are, it will be the same for you. Even spurious non-evidence
    will be accepted and more innocent will fry.

    ” So by siding with consumer groups, civil liberty activists and legislators in support of due process, we believe we can stop the legislation. ”

    Once again, you will never stop them by giving them what they want.
    You gave them the inch. I guarantee they will grab the whole cloth.

65. Dreddsnik Says:
    October 10th, 2009 at 10:57 am

    ” Billy doesn’t want sanctions, the FAC doesn’t want sanctions. How about you go and talk to every artist that believes sanctions will work and sort it out yourself, apparently its easy. ”

    Apparently, it’s easier to give in and vote for what you know won’t work, than it is to stand up for
    what’s real and right and get it through the heads of the others that believe the lie.

    Billy should have stood his ground and made the facts clear.
    The FAC WANTS sanctions.
    The majority voted YES.
    The ones hat didn’t want it voted for it ANYWAY.

    How about the ARTISTS that supposedly believe that sanctions won’t work sort it with those that do ?
    Henry, Jon and I will never be able to get within 20 feet of one of them, and if we did, one hint that
    their pampered asses might be wrong would get a bodyguard beatdown.

    The FAC wants sanctions and worse, without appearing to want them.
    That’s what it looks like, and no one really wants to stand up to them,
    because they’ll get ‘marginalized’.

    Pay real close attention to what’s been said AND what’s not been said.

66. Dreddsnik Says:
    October 10th, 2009 at 10:59 am

    ” “Some of us express it differently.
    Some avoid addressing it at all .”

    ” And there’s the rub, isn’t it? ”

    Dam you’re good.
    I think you’re the only one that really caught what I meant.

67. Dreddsnik Says:
    October 10th, 2009 at 11:10 am

    What exactly CAN you and the FAC do WHEN the labels take your assent the full
    distance ( they will, guaranteed ).

    I would guess that a majority of you are still under contract.
    You can’t exactly leave your label, I’ve seen some of those contracts.
    In a way it’s the same kind of conflict of interest as a judge with anti Pp2p
    ties running the Pirate Bay trial.

    We have a bunch of artists under contract to the Corporations that have a vested
    interest in controlling P2P, deciding for EVERYONE, including those that are not
    represented, how to handle things.

    Those very ties bind you from doing them any real harm.

    I guess thats really what i’d like addressed.

    What you think you can do to stop them, now that you given in.
    What makes you think that they will give you truth now, having
    almost never done so before, and now they have even less incentive
    to tell the truth.

68. Billy Bragg Says:
    October 10th, 2009 at 11:50 am

    Dredds,

    I have not given in, not to you nor to the Big 4. If I had, I wouldn’t be here would I? The vote would have been the end of it. Instead, here I am, trying to move this debate forward

    Of course the labels won’t tell us the truth. They think we’re the enemy. The industry rely on artists to stay silent and let the labels speak for them, so that they can use us as justification for attacking you. The thought that artists might speak up and say, wait a minute, is this a good idea, really freaks them out. The notion of artists and p2p users forming an alliance is their worse nightmare and they will castigate me – and the FAC – for having the temerity to talk to you.

    The shit you’re giving me here will be as nothing – nothing at all – compared to the lies and damnation that the Big 4 ill pour on me when they find out what we are planning.

    But I don’t need to tell you any of this do I Dredds, because you can see the future. And it’s all BAD.

    “What exactly CAN you and the FAC do WHEN the labels take your assent the full
    distance ( they will, guaranteed ).”

69. Dreddsnik Says:
    October 10th, 2009 at 12:26 pm

    ” But I don’t need to tell you any of this do I Dredds, because you can see the future. And it’s all BAD. ”

    I can’t see the future, I CAN see the examples of the now.
    Take some time to check the resources given here.

    It does however appear that I DO owe you an apology.

    I answered my own question, and will stop beating this horse ( though it is not dead ) for now,
    and hopefully more civil and reasonable discussion can occur when more of your peers arrive.

    I just may have been the obtuse one here.
    It failed to occur to me, foolishly, that all that I know is at least equal to or LESS than what I
    don’t know and have forgotten.

    I’m going to chill a while with a cup of coffee and my lone ‘Ambrosia’ album, and
    reflect on the fact that I think we both understand each other, finally.

70. Dreddsnik Says:
    October 10th, 2009 at 12:27 pm

    grrr, my kingdom for an EDIT button

71. Jon Says:
    October 10th, 2009 at 12:51 pm

    @ Dredd:

    Just type more better Or write your comment offline first.

    Cheers!

72. Dreddsnik Says:
    October 10th, 2009 at 1:01 pm

    ” Just type more better Or write your comment offline first. ”

    But my mom says I are already the smartiest.

73. Billy Bragg Says:
    October 10th, 2009 at 1:48 pm

    Dredds,

    I appreciate you sentiments and must admit that some of the stuff that you guys reference, particularly the US court cases, I am not yet familiar with.

    I do hope we can reach an understanding about what we both want from this dialogue and then both make reasoned and courteous comments and critiques of one anothers points. Because some of the ‘pampered asses’ – slightly different meaning in my country – that you referred to earlier simply won’t be able to deal with the cut and thrust that has been going on in their particular thread. Please don’t take that as an attempt to avoid issues or get anyone to shut up or butt out. I enjoy heated debate – it is just a matter of tone.

    If we want to draw artists to this debate, then we have to communicate in a manner that is not accusatory. No ‘file-sharers are stealing my work’ bullshit from them, no ‘everyone signed to a major is a corporate sock-puppet’ crap from you guys.

    Keep your coffee pot and your ‘Ambrosia’ album close at hand, Dredds. If we can get this debate going, you’re going to need them.

74. Dreddsnik Says:
    October 10th, 2009 at 3:28 pm

    ” Keep your coffee pot and your ‘Ambrosia’ album close at hand, Dredds. If we can get this debate going, you’re going to need them. ”

    It’s on Vinyl.
    Though I am technically competent enough to convert it directly to MP3 myself, it’s a time consuming
    pain in the ass process to do, so I chose to download the mp3’s for the album through p2p.

    I see this as fair use ( personal not for profit clause in the AHRA ) since I own the vinyl.
    The industry disagrees.

    One of the many things the industry and many others disagree on.
    Things that would help the industry return to customer good graces ….

    1. Allow fair return on CD’s and DVD’s for money back, and stop using ‘piracy’ as an excuse
    to prevent fair return for dissatisfied buyers.
    2. Give up on DRM. It’s a nightmare for the non-technical, and has NEVER been successful.
    The uncrackable blue ray was broken almost immediately, and blue-ray protections
    cause blue-ray purchasers endless grief. Paying customers are punished ridiculously
    and this encourages more and more to download as downloading is becoming LESS
    of a hassle than purchasing.

    Bah … i’ll shut up now.
    These issues are best covered on the new site with more of YOUR peers reading, since I
    am well aware that I am preaching to the choir here.

75. Paulus Says:
    October 10th, 2009 at 3:37 pm

    @ Dredd –

    I Am getting very tired of you and Henry. Some people are trying to look forward but you 2 keep looking behind you and say the same over and over. I am sorry because I respect you both but I have to say this.

76. Henry Emrich Says:
    October 10th, 2009 at 3:52 pm

    Bragg/CQB/Jon/Dredd:

    Bragg:

    1.I’ll try to be “nicer”, whatever that means. I’ve never said “everyone” who signs with a label is a corporate sockpuppet. (Those who explicitly side with the labels/become their anti-p2p poster-children — not gonna name names because it might hurt somebody’s feelings) are. Again, that’s their problem.
    As to the others — the ones who just might not be able to “deal with the cut and thrust” of this type of discussion? Again, not surprising in a (global) culture where celebrities — major-label musicians and actors and such — are both absurdly wealthy, pretty much completely insulated from the “real world” by those bodyguards and such Dredd mentioned, AND EVEN get special treatment from the legal system. (they get thirty days for something that would send somebody else up for life, etc.) Hell, it’s pretty common among some rappers to get released to finish an album, even if they’re involved in a murder charge.
    Tell me that’s not “pampered” or “out of touch”?

    2. As for whether they need to be brought over to “our side?” Why?
    Sonny Bono had a completely mistaken — and downright dangerous — view of what copyright was for, how long it was supposed to last, etc. (”Forever minus 1 day”). The “estate” of Margaret Mitchell very nearly had the recent Best-seller “The Wind Done Gone” suppressed because THEY claimed it violated the copyright on “Gone with the Wind”.
    (Thankfully the courts didn’t agree, and “permitted” the book to be distributed.)

    My point — and trust me, I’m REALLY struggling not to sound “argumentative” here — is that it is REALLY common for celebrities to have an extremely strange and narcissistic approach to copyright-related issues:

    Some of them sue because a riff “kinda sounds like” one of THEIR riffs (Joe Satriani Vs. Coldplay)
    Carol Burnett sued Seth McFarlane (the creator of “Family Guy”) because he had a parody of that janitor-character she used on her show.
    JD Salinger hadn’t done a goddamn thing since “Catcher in the Rye” — reclusive to the max — and yet he/his handlers got some guy’s book suppressed because they *thought* it reflected unfavorably on “Catcher”. (As though that whole thing about “John Lennon’s killer’s favorite book” WASN’T controversial? Hell, that’s pretty much the only reason *I* read it.

    The reason I bring these people up, is because it deomstrates a pattern of celebrities USING copyright law, basically as a cultural weapon of mass destruction. They have no idea what it was originally FOR, how long it was originally intended to LAST, they don’t give a shit about whether the Public Domain is important or not. They just want to extract maximum profit-margin, and maximum “artistic control” at any cost, in any context, and by any means.

    You don’t think the labels/their lobbyists know how to exploit that? Lily Allen may be (vaguely) aware that she’s not getting the best possible deal fro the labels, but if she felt compelled to *hide* under their skirts and become their poster-child because she was “more afraid” of p2pers, then she either fell for their bullshit, or actively believes in it.

    My point is: why *IS* it supposedly so vitally-important to bring that 1% of “successful” label-backed celebrities and actors and such into the light? Do they even WANT to learn about it, if it involves questioning their own insulated little world of corporate privilege?

    Personally, I doubt it.

    That’s why your seeming obsession with whether Lily Allen’s feelings were hurt or not really rankled me.

    But like I said, I’ll try to be nice.

    Cqb:
    If you’ve “been online since 1995″, you should have realized by now that you can “read” anything into what people say. All you have to go on is words on a screen, so you either pay attention to the points raised, or on whatever you think the “tone” of the thing was.
    My “attitude?” As I tried to demonstrate with your “clarification” to Dredd about the “printer got a DMCA takedown” thing, if he’s really WANTED to, he could have “read” an extreme amount of snottiness and superiority “behind” what you said, but he didn’t.

    So stop trying to make up for the fact that text lacks vocal inflections, by trying to comment on my “tone”.
    Stop accusing me of having an “attitude” toward you, because I don’t.

    The fact that you (mis)read the “how hard is this to understand” thing as a put-down is — again — YOUR problem. More accurately, it’s YOUR choice. So stop being all melodramatic about how you “think” I sounded, M’kay?

    (Oh good gracious me, he’ll probably think *that* was a put-down too!)

    Jon:
    Thanks for the clarification. I misremembered the names. I thought Jammie was the one who had MS.

    Billy:
    I’m going to float an idea here:
    You and your mates over at FAC want to be perceived as not in line with the corporate labels or their actions, right?
    A lot of celebrities are really into charity (Bono, etc.)

    So how about one of your first gestures as FAC — or even an off-the-books thing between a few celebrities, be an offer to pay off Jammie Thomas’, Joel Tennenbaum, or the TPB guys’ fines?

    Speaking for myself, I don’t have — and probably never *WILL* have — that kind of money.
    Some celebrities do.

    If you’re *really* not corporate shills, and you *really* don’t like what they’re doing, you could make an extremely big “statement” without saying a single word, by helping those who’ve been victimized by those labels.

    Hell, that might be a good idea:
    How about a feature on the new blog (whatever it’s gonna be called) where people can donate directly to Jammie or Joel or whoever happens to be being victimized by the labels at any given time (thanks to those “sanctions” FAC voted for, but didn’t really want.)

    Just an idea — hopefully not as “argumentative” as the last few.

77. Henry Emrich Says:
    October 10th, 2009 at 4:00 pm

    Paulus:

    “I Am getting very tired of you and Henry. Some people are trying to look forward but you 2 keep looking behind you and say the same over and over. I am sorry because I respect you both but I have to say this.”

    What exactly are you “tired” of, Paulus?
    So long as the corporate megaliths, their lobbyists (like the RIAA), and even “dissenting” lobbyists like the FAC keep DOING the “same things over and over”, we’ll keep having to MENTION them over and over.

    When Billy/cqb/robert try to derail the discussion by obsessing on whether Lily Allen’s “feelings” may have been hurt, or whether I have an “attitude” — instead of actually answering the points raised, *I* get tired of THAT.

    I also get “tired” of the way you think that I’m supposed to be interested in what makes YOU “tired”.

    Hope that wasn’t too sarcastic for anybody.

    If you “respect” us both, you also “respect” them enough to not nit-pick over the presentation.

    Also, what exactly are you looking “forward” to, with this new blog?
    I’m still trying to figure out how correcting celebrity misunderstanding will actually change things.

    Please give Dredd and I a list of things we keep “saying over and over”, so we can avoid them.
    Then maybe it won’t make you so *tired*.

    Have a good day, Y’all.

78. Jon Says:
    October 10th, 2009 at 4:21 pm

    @ Henry:

    Rae-Jay Schwartz is the lady with MS – http://www.p2pnet.net/story/13402.

    Tanya was on the disability pension, but I don’t know if she still is – http://www.p2pnet.net/story/11792.

    Cheers!

79. Henry Emrich Says:
    October 10th, 2009 at 6:46 pm

    Billy:

    “I have not given in, not to you nor to the Big 4. If I had, I wouldn’t be here would I? The vote would have been the end of it. Instead, here I am, trying to move this debate forward”

    What are we “debating”, exactly?
    Whether Lily Allen, Lars Ulrich, and the other artists’ buying into the corporate line got their “feelings” hurt?
    Or are we debating the merits voting for something you KNEW stood no chance of actually working, for the sake of expediency?

    Honestly, don’t take this the wrong way, but there was no French “pro-p2p artist” organization lending their names to Sarkoszy’s 3-strikes bullshit. The fact that FAC threw it’s support behind ANY sanctions indicates that they *have* bought into the labels’ propaganda about how much of a threat p2p supposedly is.

    But like Dredd said, I’ll leave this alone, because obviously you WEREN’T offended about Lily’s feelings, or trying to make the debate about how she loves fluffy little kittens or something.

    So just WHAT are we debating again?

    (Goddamnit, Dredd — I don’t even have COFFEE)

    And yes, I *have* been somewhat more stressed out lately than usual. Not that any of you needed to try to psychoanalyze me over it, but hey.

80. Henry Emrich Says:
    October 10th, 2009 at 8:43 pm

    “My argument was with your behaviour and frankly, trying to avoid the criticism by saying its my problem not yours sucks. How would you feel if I countered your criticism of the FAC vote with the same dismissive response?”

    Haven’t you?
    You keep saying (’over and over’) that voting for a watered-down version of what they were going to ram through anyway is some kind of grand strategic step forward. How, exactly?

    Then you make a big production of how Lily Allen is a “real person”. And? Mengele was a “real person”, too. So is Lynndie England. So was Jeffrey Dahmer. “Real people” can — and do — join horrible organizations and support horrible things, and if she wants to be a corporate lapdog, she should expect to get ‘kicked’ by p2p folk when she tries to pee on their leg.

    But Like I just recently told Jon in an email, I’m going to back away from this whole thing, now, and let “voices of reason’ like Robert and Cqb fall all over themselves about how awesomely cool your participation here is.

    Personally, I gotta wonder why your doing it? If what you’re getting from us is “nothing” compared to what you’ll get from the labels and label-loving artists, then why even do it?

    Read the Lessig book, don’t take my “tone” personally.

    Cqb is also free to “just ignore my comments” if he so chooses: his loss.
    How exactly do I say what needs to be said, if I’m spending half my time worrying about what you’ll “read” into how I happened to word it? Your obviously not getting that part of it, so I’ll take the cue from Dred and just shut up for now.

81. Billy Bragg Says:
    October 11th, 2009 at 10:24 am

    Why am I doing it Henry? Because I believe that a dialogue between artists and fans is crucial if we hope to create a new digital business model that is not controlled by the corporations. I believe in this so much that I am prepared to put up with your cynicism about my motives. In fact, trying to prove you wrong has become part of my motivation.

82. Crosbie Fitch Says:
    October 13th, 2009 at 6:31 am

    I’ve been away for a few days, but if anyone’s interested in IP legislation that follows from natural law (the natural rights of human beings), rather than from the intense state and commercial interests that give rise to corporations being unethically privileged with personhood and monopolies such as copyright and patent, then ‘moral rights’ gives an inkling. See Moral Rights and Authors’ Rights for an introduction.

    Unfortunately, copyright has had a large effect in the overreach of moral rights as a means of providing authors with alternative powers over the use of their work, instead of the need either to protect individuals’ privacy (authors or not), and to prevent people’s apprehension of the truth concerning intellectual works from being impaired. It must always be recognised that authors do not gain unnatural powers over their fellows through being the creators of works in their fellows’ possession, just as a basket weaver does not obtain power over those who use the baskets they make. The point is that people cannot change the facts, to change, distort or otherwise impair the truth to suit their interest. Legislation that is in accord with natural law protects the truth, it does not empower authors with the ability to police and constrain the use of their work (though it may seem like that).

    So, at the point at which copyright legislation is abolished, one needs moral rights legislation fully enacted (albeit cleansed of its infection with copyright’s notion of authorial empowerment).

Leave a Reply