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).

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.

“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.

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!

“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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

But my mom says I are already the smartiest.

Just type more better Or write your comment offline first.

Cheers!

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.

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 ).”

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.

” 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.

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.

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.

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!