Artists to Fans to Artists: a2f2a
p2pnet news view Freedom | P2P:- Frankly, all this afternoon I’ve been thinking somewhat pessimistically about what’s currently known as the Billy Bragg discussion.
Because from where I’m sitting, it seems to be going in ever-decreasing circles to the extent it’s now almost a closed loop.
However, not only in the interests of music lovers and musicians, but also the thousands of people around the world — even very young children — being wrongly characterised as criminals and thieves, we have to keep this going.
We all depend on each other.
There’s never been two-way communications between the people who make music, and the people who listen to it.
A lot of people from all sides of all fences are watching, including some who who’d dearly love to see it all fall apart. Can you guess who they might be?
So I was really encouraged to get an email from Dredd a little while ago.
And No, I didn’t ask for it. This is entirely Dredd’s initiative, a word totally corrupted by the cartels but in this instance, entirely appropriate.
Here’s what he says »»»
About the proposed new site:
In a different thread BB asked about a debate framework and some ground rules. Regardless of any misgivings, the idea has a LOT of merit and deserves serious consideration. I really WANT this to work, but it won’t if artists feel like they are going to be treated poorly.
BB stuck his hand out and took everything we gave him with class. We need to do the same. In that spirit I put this together as a beginning.
Debate/discussion framework
The Purpose of p2pnet for the past nine years has been to bring the news of the Media’s use and abuse of copyright to as many people as possible and discuss the ramifications of their actions. One thing has been noticeably missing – Direct input from the affected Artists involved.
An environment of mistrust and animosity has been fostered by the Corporate copyright holders, so that Artist and fan stay in a perpetual wheel of mistrust, never really understanding the other’s perspective.
The new site has the potential to change some of that. If nothing else, it should be designed so that Artists, signed and unsigned can talk to the fans, and fans can talk to those artists, to clear up misconceptions, and preconcieved notions of where the P2P community stands and where the Artists stand, on matters regarding copyright, payment, lawsuits, and the current climate of mistrust, so that those notions can potentially be eliminated , or at the very least UNDERSTANDING can be fostered.
Suggested ground rules.
It can’t be p2pnet.
p2pnet in its entire existence has been very liberal in it’s posting policy that policy may not be as appropriate for this. Those that have recieved the worst treatment the internet can offer may not be willing to risk even more abuse if the forum is entirely open and unmoderated. This forum needs more strict moderation policies, as abusive posters and troll activity will definitely push label signed artists away. They’re not going to come to be abused, so they need to know that they are not walking into an ambush. We want this to work, so, I know that you really believe in a completely open forum , but for the target audience it is not, in my opinion a good idea.
- Everyone should refrain from using terms like ’shill’ , thief, stealing, puppet, or any of the well known, overused words used to describe both sides of this issue. They are of no use except to provoke each other and keep the rift between us wide, and are totally non productive.
- Courtesy is the watchword. Even if you don’t agree with each other common courtesy can be maintained. If we remain civil with each other, understanding has a chance, and maybe, eventually, respect. That won’t happen if we can’t remain courteous to each other.
- Anonymity. There are good reasons for this for both sides of the debate. Choosing to remain Anonymous is NOT an act of cowardice, and those that choose to remain anonymous should not be attacked for their choice. On this board we need to be willing to accept who the poster says they are at face value, and not ’shill’ , ‘fool’ (See rule 1 ).
- Trolls will not be tolerated at all. Personal attacks are not welcome. We’re her to understand each other, not slap each other around.
- Whichever side you are on, please try to back up the reasons you feel the way you do, use references, links, or just plain explain. If you think downloading is ‘killing’ you, please do your best to explain why, and back it up, but keep an open mind. This goes for P2P proponents as well. Back up your claims with sound reasoning.
- Leave all assumptions about who posters are at the door. All of us have reasons why we believe what we do, while one might not see the validity of the others reasoning, it does NOT mean they are wrong or stupid. Ask questions, be courteous. You may be surprised to find how much we actually have in common.
Dreddsnik
Thanks, Dredd. Thanks for wanting to keep the door open.
Cheers!
Jon
First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win ~ Mahatma Gandhi
October, 2009
Use free p2pnet newsfeeds for your site. It’s really easy!
Subscribe to p2pnet.net | | rss feed: http://p2pnet.net/p2p.rss | | Mobile – http://p2pnet.net/index-wml.php
Net access blocked by government restrictions? Use Psiphon from the Citizen Lab at the University of Toronto. Go here for details.
October 10th, 2009 at 8:26 pm
Am I missing something here or is the proposed venue not going to appear ?
I second Dreddsnik’s words btw as they are in harmony with my own feelings on this important matter, I do feel though that to save the issue of discussion from a slow death that some urgency is put into creating a neutral place where the dialogue can begin, the longer the matter is left the more the space is there for trolls and mistrust to sneak in the usual routes, its clear we cant force the artists to come to the debating table but I,m confident they like ourselves are more than eager to have a full discussion on the important aspect of respecting rights and raising revenues for themselves and of course some input from ourselves on the matter of business models and how we can help each other get past the current impasse of “four labels to rule them all” mentality that seems to be the road many artists are forced down if they want to obtain what amounts to a pittance for their hard work, this is my thoughts at this time Jon and I,m sure many othes here are eager to read and reply to artists, musicians and others who feel marginalised and need to be heard.
I,m a music purchasing fan of many artists and for that reason I,m more than happy to abide by the well thought out discussion guidlines that have been mentioned here, discussion is not going to weaken either artists or our own opinions but it may help us clarify the root of some of the mutual “misconceptions” and aid all to assess our true situation and in time maybe point to a new road ahead for all involved, thats a fine and worthy goal and I urge all speed be made to ensure we maximise the potential growth of the humble acorn yourself and Billy have endeavoured to plant.
October 10th, 2009 at 8:47 pm
@ Quartz
It’s coming for sure. Promise.
a2f2a.com
And it’ll be deadly– in a good way.
Cheers!
October 10th, 2009 at 8:48 pm
I’m hoping this gets passed around to all involved in putting it together, to add
clarify, or modify. It’s a draft that needs tweaking. I’m hoping BB gets a look
and provides some input.
October 10th, 2009 at 8:50 pm
@ Dredd.
I’ve literally just been talking to Billy. He think it’s a great start.
Cheers!
October 10th, 2009 at 8:57 pm
Quartz,
It is going to appear – and very soon. Jon and I are working on a joint statement this weekend.
Dredd,
Thank you very much for coming up with the ground rules for debate. Really helpful, particularly the anonymity aspect. As I have found out in the past couple of days, when you’re arguing about the behaviour of the previous poster and not the issue, the debate quickly gets clogged up.
Keep drinking the coffee.
October 10th, 2009 at 8:59 pm
Oh, just a side note …
Sam I am’s need not apply.
October 10th, 2009 at 9:06 pm
By that I mean I really hope to see a lot of working, recording label and
non label people airing their side without worrying about taking a golf
club to the groin. That makes rule 4 very important and very difficult.
Some are going to howl about ‘Free Speech’ but ‘adult speech’ is what we
need. It’s really tough to strike the balance as to what crosses the line from
dissent to ‘troll’. I’m not really sure how to handle that.
October 10th, 2009 at 9:18 pm
@ Jon and Billy,
All of this is looking great, while I admit im not a “major player” (like Dredd or some of the others)
in posting on P2Pnet. I do keep an eye on what gets written and posted here because this is
important not only to us older generation, but to the younger folks. (including my daughters)
So, crank it up gentlemen, and in my own weird way I will support your efforts!
P2P and artists can exist on the same planet, you just have to prove it to both sides.
I believe this new site will help that happen!
October 10th, 2009 at 9:46 pm
Sounds good, i hope that we can make some progress
October 10th, 2009 at 10:31 pm
Billy etc.:
“Thank you very much for coming up with the ground rules for debate. Really helpful, particularly the anonymity aspect. As I have found out in the past couple of days, when you’re arguing about the behaviour of the previous poster and not the issue, the debate quickly gets clogged up.”
You’re right about that one. People were mean to Lily Allen. You spoke up against it because you figured she was being dehumanized or something, and it spiraled down from there. Then all that stuff about how “confrontational” I might have phrased things came up, and it went downhill again.
Personally, I’m going to watch how this thing unfolds with a LOT of skepticism, but as much of an open-mind as I can manage.
Keep in mind, however — and this goes for Robert and Cqb and whoever else — that what you guys might have gotten from me is a PALE SHADOW of what’s likely to happen on both sides. Trying to keep the discussion from deteriorating into a flame-war is one thing, but you need to realize that BOTH sides — p2p users/copyright reform advocates AND major-label artists have been swimming in tainted pools for years now: there’s a lot of “bad blood” to overcome, and I for one have serious doubts that we can make much progress:
I’m not going to expand on this any further, because I’m trying to keep it “positive” (and at this point, I can barely even manage “grudgingly neutral”.)
Dredd:
Great stuff. Beautiful sentiments, nice dream.
But don’t be surprised if/when this particular seed doesn’t grow.
October 10th, 2009 at 10:37 pm
Dred:
“By that I mean I really hope to see a lot of working, recording label and
non label people airing their side without worrying about taking a golf
club to the groin. That makes rule 4 very important and very difficult.”
So what exactly constitutes “personal attacks?”
Describing Lily Allen as a “corporate whore” obviously doesn’t mean that she deep-throats label execs, so you have to be *really* strict as to what you consider “personal”.
I mean, obviously it’s possible to think “how hard is * to understand” is a “personal attack”.
Please clarify. I think I get where you’re going with this, but I just want to know.
Hopefully this is more “reasonable” than what we’ve been seeing?
October 10th, 2009 at 11:03 pm
” Please clarify. I think I get where you’re going with this, but I just want to know. ”
LOL, you know as well as I do ( look at rule #1 ) that ‘Corporate Whore’ would be
a no-no.
Here’s somes tests
1. Would you say it to your mom ?
2. If your mom was a longshoreman, would you say it directly to
the face of a guy thats eats rocks and shits blocks ?
3. Would you say it in front of your 7 year old daughter ?
4. would you act this way at a family members funeral ?
I really want this to work.
Yep, it’s a nice dream, but some of the most worthwhile successes also
started as ‘nice dreams’.
All I ask is that we try to behave as though we were looking each other in the
eye, and not behind a PC.
October 10th, 2009 at 11:18 pm
My self,
My wifes grandmother is the one I feared even more than my mom.
You could be in a different room in a huge house, and if the word
‘fuck’ slipped out, even in a frequency that only dogs can hear, that
shoe would come flying around the corner and unerringly smack the
back of my head hard enough to send my eyeglasses into my beer.
October 11th, 2009 at 12:37 am
Gee, it looks like someone’s really REALLY jonesing to be an admin or a mod.
October 11th, 2009 at 12:55 am
“My wifes grandmother is the one I feared even more than my mom.
You could be in a different room in a huge house, and if the word
‘fuck’ slipped out, even in a frequency that only dogs can hear, that
shoe would come flying around the corner and unerringly smack the
back of my head hard enough to send my eyeglasses into my beer.”
That’s interesting:
My situation is a bit different, actually:
1. Family “discussion” usually involved broken dishes and screaming.
2. I’ve never had the luxury of being “precious” about particular words (motherfucker included): whether it was my heroin-addict half-brother yammering on and on endlessly about “The Zionist Occupation government”, or the pretty constant bullying from just about everybody in my school, I was not only well-aquainted with what others might mis-construe as “salty” language, but desensitized to it, as well.
Here’s the central issue:
We’re NOT talking to one another “face to face”. All we DO know about one another IS that we’re text-on-a-screen. Despite emoticons and smilies and suchlike, text-on-a-screen doesn’t carry all the non-verbal stuff we take for granted.
So it’s easy to misunderstand somebody as “argumentative”.
And WHY would “corporate whore” be a no-no, exactly?
I mean, factually-speaking, she *did* become the anti-p2p poster-girl, and continues to be well-compensated by her corporate owners. Sure, they allowed *her* to take the fall, but y’know what? She’s still wealthier than any ten of us put together.
I’m not as thin-skinned as some, I’ll freely admit that. Personally, I think it’s a good thing.
“Corporate whore” isn’t a personal attack, or at least not what *I’d* consider a personal attack.
“Sam I Am” tended to go for pissy little jabs at where I lived, details of my family life, etc. etc. and I consider THAT kind of thing “personal attacks”.
I don’t consider a question like “what’s so hard about * to understand?” to be “argumentative” in the least, and if you set the conversational bar THAT high, to the point where those with the softest skins/MOST easily “offended” get to set the terms, then you’re guaranteed to make ZERO headway, because the conversation will inevitably stagnate the first time somebody takes offense at random.
(As a side-note, I had a grandmother who was somewhat like the one you described. When my wife and I were helping some relatives dump some junk-mail and random crap left over from my relatives, we found a box of polaroids dating from approximately 1964-1990s.
Before you ask: home-made porn involving my grandmother and various guys she evidently used to bring over and have sex with, as part of her ‘negotiation’-tactics as a Union rep for her job at the time (at least according to some of the letters we also found.)
Older relatives are NOTORIOUS for their hypocrisy in this regard.
But no, I probably wouldn’t use the term “corporate whore” around my mom, in the same way I don’t call arabs “rag-heads” (like SHE does.)
But I kinda get what you’re going for, yeah.
I have my doubts.
If people try to be really nice and gentle and “inoffensive” and such, ultimately nothing will get said, because people will be monitoring themselves too much, lest somebody, somewhere in the woodwork find something “offensive”.
Personally, I think I’ve done well with this, and still think that Cqb and Robert need to maybe grow a thicker skin.
But I’ll leave it alone, in the interests of being “nicer”.
October 11th, 2009 at 1:12 am
I think I just stumbled into a DIY psychotherapy website.
Head shrinking is two doors down, thank you very much.
October 11th, 2009 at 1:21 am
RW:
“Psychotherapy is two doors down”:
Actually, it’s over in another thread, where people kept asking me “where is all the anger coming from”?
That’s what pissed me off.
Last post on this topic from me, I promise:
Cqb:
Would you consider THIS to qualify as a “personal attack?”:
“@Dreddsnik: 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/”
Was that a “clarification”, or were you insinuating something about Dred’s level of intelligence?
It’s the same principle as when somebody dodges answering a question by fixating on the number of typos or such.
It’s extremely easy to be ‘offended’ over damn near anything and everything, is my basic point.
So instead of going into your dramatic little snit about how my ‘tone’ was ’somewhat offensive and argumentative’, you could have simply asked me if I was *trying* to be condescending, instead of all this “from whence comes the rage” crapola.
Enough of this — l8r, Y’all
October 11th, 2009 at 3:13 am
“Gee, it looks like someone’s really REALLY jonesing to be an admin or a mod.”
Didn’t you realize that being ‘offended’ is the new universal key to power?
Whatever I might have said, it damned sure wasn’t anything a person with a reasonably thick skin would regard as an “attack”, personal or otherwise.
Feh…whatever.
October 11th, 2009 at 5:34 am
……. /sigh
@Dredd
Brilliant, that looks to be a good framework for us to go forward with and keep this ball rolling.
Billy and Jon, thanks for keeping this moving, a site like a2f2a could be just the thing to move us into a new era of understanding each other and moving away from fans being victims.
Is their going to be any sort of validation on artists who may join a2f2a, potential for troublemakers registering accounts in the guise of big name celebs seems high.
October 11th, 2009 at 8:14 am
Sounds like a lot of Obushma double-talk: moving into a new era of understanding, change we can believe in crap. Malarkey!
And I believe the other person was referring to Dreddsnik jonesing to be and admin or a mod since he/she/it wrote out all of these rules, and sent it to Big Daddy Jon (*sealed with a kiss* it sounds like). That’s jonesing for something.
October 11th, 2009 at 8:28 am
Why a2f2a.com? It sounds like a company that way.
.org or even .net would at least give it an air independence.
This website is p2pnet.net, not p2pnet.com.
October 11th, 2009 at 8:46 am
Some want to put in a genuine effort and help make the future a better place for everyone while others simply want to see the world burn. I feel pity for the latter. People would do well to remember that the artists are not the enemy. It’s the big four labels that are. I’ve been a proud “pirate” ever since the day the Apple II+ hit the shelves. I applaud what Jon, Billy and others are trying to accomplish here and sincerely hope it works out. Back when Lilly Allen posted on her blog, I was impressed by the amount of communication it stirred up all across the internet. People raised valid questions, posing them to her in response. I was actually quite sad when Lilly decided to simply quit instead of meeting the challenge head on. Communication is a good thing whether you agree with what is being said or not and it is the only way both sides are going to find any kind of common ground. Most folks would find the attempt being discussed here daunting to say the least. I know I certainly would. Good luck, your going to need it!
October 11th, 2009 at 9:28 am
I’m keeping my fingers crossed and think it could have some long term benefit. However, I’m not too sure about the short and medium term.
As a note of caution, the one thing that makes things go one’s way is money, a lot of it. And Big Media have tons of that.
If this venture starts to be successful, you can be sure as hell, that they will use all their power and influence to disrupt it and maintain the status quo. How does suing or paying off the founders or anyone else important to this movement sound, for example? The lawsuit doesn’t have to be valid – it takes money to fight any lawsuit, so they could just sink someone with that, like all their RIAA extortion tactics to date, with that.
How much would they have to offer you Jon, Billy to pay you off and just go away? Everyone has his price and they might just call it. Would you REALLY turn down 3 million to stop being a pain their ass?? Mike Masnick of Techdirt certainly has and has been honest enough to admit it. He’s posted about it here, (scroll to the bottom) http://www.techdirt.com/rtb.php
We really, REALLY need to guard against this. This fight will get uglier, make no mistake. Perhaps having secret benefactors whom they couldn’t get at would help?
Suggestions welcome.
October 11th, 2009 at 9:30 am
““Sam I Am” tended to go for pissy little jabs at where I lived, details of my family life, etc. etc. and I consider THAT kind of thing “personal attacks”.”
I beg your pardon, Henry, my observations then were cogent at the time because of their pertinence to our discussion. I recall losing my temper and for that I apologize. The rhetoric grew heated for awhile and I said things I regret. But I also recall being characterized by you repeatedly in the nastiest terms imaginable, while the audience here cheered and you spiked your off-topic put-downs in the end zone. Your skin is not nearly as thick as you’d like to believe.
Henry and I both grew up in small towns in rural Pennsylvania, he about 35 miles to the west of the farmland that was my home as a kid. I moved to Manhattan right out of state college and built a design firm that supports live and touring event and industrial shows all over the world. I toured with Deep Purple, Billy Joel and Pat Benetar back in the day and I have always worked closely with music. Henry chose to remain in Pennsylvania, respectable in and of itself. But he has always weighed in here with a very heavy and dismissive hand on issues with which he has no education or experience. It’s very easy to grouse that the deck is stacked when you’ve never actually found the courage or ambition to get into the game. Your choice to remain uneducated and in a small town with little to back your assertions but an internet connection, Henry, is exemplary to the way you express your misinformed ideas in scatological terms. And you never did tell us what your work is, your true area of week-in-week-out expertise.
If you need it explained to you why “corporate whore” is not appropriate in the artistic, industrial and legal circles trying to sort out this mess, it’s likely because of your lack of exposure to those very people and lack of experience in business.
I was in London last February for the Brit Music Awards and I had the pleasure of a brief but fun conversation with Miss Lily Allen at the afterparty. She’s a very bright and focused, very ambitious young woman whose politics happen to be different than yours. And she’s no “better” than any of us here.
But she’s also orchestrated a meteoric, international career these past three or four years working harder in those 36 or 48 months than you have in all the accrued years of your adult life. It’s true her Father offers valuable entrée but you do not remain in that rarified atmosphere without earning your place day after day. As I’ve observed several times, Henry, your condescending potty mouthed attitude gives the impression here of being intelligent without actually being very smart. And you say “[Lily’s] still wealthier than any ten of us put together.” as if that were a bad thing, or somehow unfair. The scope of her influence and financial security is commensurate with what she’s earned for herself just as it is for us all. I, for one, really hope Jon and Billy are on to something here.
October 11th, 2009 at 10:09 am
RW @ 8.28
“.org or even .net would at least give it an air independence.”
Thats a good point I have to agree, to my thinking org would be the most suitable choice.
Of course, it would be wise to register com/org and net, but use .org as the main address?
October 11th, 2009 at 10:21 am
@Cynix
Jon already has a secret benefactor who pays all his bills, his vacations (however long or short they are), and buys him a new laptop when he spills coffee on it.
But for this new website – whoever owns it AND pays for it should be publicly known so there is absolutely no question of conflict of interests.
And it should not be paid and run by Jon’s secret benefactor.
October 11th, 2009 at 10:31 am
“Why a2f2a.com? It sounds like a company that way.”
.com is arguably most familiar and most common domain name ending.
p2pnet.net is p2pnet.net because when I started the site the P2P concept wasn’t, relatively speaking, widely known and p2pnet was supposed to be all about peer-to-peer (P2P) music sharing and networking, but via MIDI, not mp3s, which were still in their very early infancy.
And we are a company — company of people trying to bypass all the Big Music bullshit and deal with each other with respect and consideration instead of allowing Vivendi Universal, EMI, Warner Music and Sony Music to manipulate us and lie about us in our names.
Cheers!
October 11th, 2009 at 10:32 am
Henry,
Calling a woman a whore is never acceptable in my view, no matter what you preface it with.
October 11th, 2009 at 10:39 am
What…a man can’t be a “whore”? Sure he can. But it’s ok to call him one?
Double standards and Obushma double-speak we can’t believe in.
And it’s just a word, like FUCK – which is some thing both Jon and BB have used here quite a few times, but I don’t see anyone complaining about that.
We’ve called a spade a spade here many times, and if Lily Allen (or anyone else) chooses to be a corporate whore or shill, then that’s what they’ll be labeled. She’s a sell-out, just like Bram Cohen is a whore.
October 11th, 2009 at 10:43 am
@ Dredd:
“Sam I am’s need not apply.”
Actually, Dredd, they can. [And so can Lily Allen, come to that.
] But this time around anyone who wants to contribute to the discussion will have to register. And as you said yourself, “Courtesy is the watchword. Even if you don’t agree with each other common courtesy can be maintained. If we remain civil with each other, understanding has a chance, and maybe, eventually, respect.”
Cheers!
October 11th, 2009 at 11:05 am
@ RW
“Jon already has a secret benefactor who pays all his bills, his vacations (however long or short they are), and buys him a new laptop when he spills coffee on it.”
This is an obvious troll effort and it won’t see the light of day on the new site
But I’ll respond because the question of who’ll pay for the site has come up before.
The guy who’s been providing financial support for p2pnet is a sponsor, not a benefactor, and for excellent reasons of his own, prefers to remain anonymous instead of shooting his mouth off. But without without his help, p2pnet would have folded.
On my new laptop [ http://www.p2pnet.net/story/28647 ] I paid for it myself, and I have yet to have a real vacation
.
And as to [a2f2a] “should not be paid and run by Jon’s secret benefactor,” Billy is forking out for hosting, which’ll be in the UK. That, to me, is an excellent sign of his commitment — not that he needs it having hung in despite all the bad-mouthing.
It’ll be a WordPress blog and Chris Ovenden, a musician and thinker who’s contributed some excellent articles to p2pnet and will be for sure joining the discussion over at a2f2a, will be installing it and looking after the tech end. I’m going to find the theme, or make one. It’ll be simple and non-glitz because the idea is to provide a forum, not an example of sparkling web site design. ;P
Who’ll run it?
Billy and I. As we’ve both been at pains to point out, neither of us is representing anyone or anything other than ourselves because we love music and want to see it survive and prosper in this new digital 21st-century.
Cheers!
October 11th, 2009 at 1:01 pm
Henry,
Your smart enough to know exactly what I mean, I’m not going to even try
to break it down into minutiae. Everyone hopefully is adult enough to know.
In this thread alone there are posts that we know won’t live to see daylight
on the other site, because they have no purpose but to cause some sort
of negative reaction, no one needs any help pointing them out. Yes, thicker
skins will be needed, but not flame suits.
As far as the new site goes, I would imagine there will be at least two mods,
one from EACH side of the fence. That means kicking a post would mutual.
I’d like it to be a place for diplomacy, not assholery. Maybe Sam could be
mod number 2, he certainly seems to have the time
October 11th, 2009 at 1:06 pm
( yes, I AM serious )
October 11th, 2009 at 1:16 pm
Personally, I think some people need to look at the obvious:
1) Jon’s always run this site admirably. Only an idiot would start mistrusting him now.
2) Even if Jon were to have a “sugar daddy”, such a point would have no real significance.
3) Billy Bragg has reached out and stayed around (despite all the personal attacks) , and is now willing to front some of his own time and cash in an effort to launch something that could finally get the fans and artists talking. (How huge is that?!)
4) People will always “be people”. There WILL be “riffs”. There WILL be those from both the filesharing community and the artists community getting “passionate” about their beliefs. And despite the registration, I think it’s reasonable to still EXPECT trolling and attempted exploits by Big Media goons. You won’t really change that landscape a great deal with rules, registration and moderation.
About #4:
) elements is a good thing, it may not be realistic to expect everyone to follow some “courtroom-inspired” protocol that’s designed to keep everyone else from “getting upset”. Any moderation of this site should carefully take into consideration as to whether or not the commenter actually made a valid point (regardless of how it might have been phrased), before banishing the post. (Possibly, the post could still be allowed in part, should it contain some good elements, with an “auto disclaimer”, to let through the fact that it was made, etc.?)
While, I do think trying to filter out some of the “non-constructive” (
I also believe “semantics” plays a huge part in some of what some people consider to be “abusive”. Not everyone has that “Oxford education” others would seem to be demanding all commenters should have. Not everyone is from the same country or culture. And, there’s no doubt in my mind that some people simply have what’s commonly referred to as a “short fuse”.
It’s the wide variety of “colour” in all our characters that makes any meeting of the minds more constructive. We need to hear MANY perspectives. And, quite often, these perspectives can only be voiced properly when they’re given the latitude to express themselves in the manner in which they’re used to.
I would welcome not only the “Billy Braggs”, the “Crosbie Fitches” and the “Dredds”, but also the “Lily Allens”, the “Henry Emrichs” (and “Devil’s Advocates”
), and the “Sam I Ams”. Should the whole thing take off really well, down the road I might even go as far as to include the “Dan Glickmans” and the “corporate shills”, because at that stage, they would be more obliged to BACK UP what they say, rather than repeat the same classic spew they’ve gotten away with before.
Either way, people will always be people.
That’s not always such a bad thing.
October 11th, 2009 at 2:10 pm
I’m having fun already.
It’s really satisfying to be involved in something which allows us to wipe up the nasty mess created by Vivendi Universal, EMI, Warner Music and Sony Music. It takes online music out of corporate hands and puts us in the control room, which is where we should’ve been from day one, and probably would’ve been had it not been for the greedy, self-serving machinations of the Big 4.
Here’s the reality: The labels which comprise the corporate music industry are dead. The presence they’ve managed to retain is ghostly and only exists at all because of the traditional lamescream news corpse, significant portions of which are controlled by the entertainment cartels themselves.
But (sorry to repeat something I’ve said before) the net is the great equaliser. It allows people everywhere from all walks to talk directly with each other, completely bypassing the powers that used to be.
That’s HUGE! And it’s why a2f2a will be a success.
Cheers!
October 11th, 2009 at 2:30 pm
^^ Jon
+1 Mate.
“That’s HUGE! And it’s why a2f2a will be a success.”
I look forward to it.
October 11th, 2009 at 3:56 pm
Sam I am:
“govt will eventually license all encryption” remember that? I do. I destroyed your argument with a home written php cypher.
Sam I am = troll of the year. He/it would not be welcome on my own website that’s for sure.
October 11th, 2009 at 4:10 pm
But lando,
There has to be room for everyone at a2f2a – and we have to be able to debate with them without descending to their level. I made a couple of snarky remarks when I first posted here, Dredd picked me up on it and now I think not just about what I’m writing, but how it might look when posted.
Some of the other internet forums discussing this issue that I’ve dipped into are almost comically dismissive of anyone who questions the group-think. Asking why do you post here, you clearly don’t agree with us etc etc. Where we are going will be no place for dittoheads. I expect the arguments to be heated but constructive, with difficult issues confronted with facts not dismissed with rhetoric.
If we can sustain those kind of standards, then the trolls and the bullshitters should stand out a mile.
October 11th, 2009 at 4:23 pm
I was still lurking here so i’ll throw in my response.
Billy I have respect for what you and Jon are trying to achieve. I think it will ultimately fail as trolls will take it over in no time. Constructive debate will turn ugly the second posters like Sam I am get their space to post. Just take a look at the Canadian copyright consultation website for a look at what happens to constructive debate when industry ’shills’ (I said it here because I wont be able to say it on a2f2a) sick their paid trolls on it.
Search p2pnet for Sam I Am’s posts and ask yourself how constructive these people can be. I know their are some people who will never accept fact because of their own delusions. I would be happy to join in your discussions on a2f2a but my opinion still stands on people such as Sam I am who post their mindless dribble on zeropaid , torrentfreak, and p2pnet to name a few.
http://www.p2pnet.net/story/18400 see 7th post under RW. I have been a reader here for quite some time.
I will commend you for your efforts though. I wish more artists like yourself were willing to discuss these things on this level.
October 11th, 2009 at 4:59 pm
Hello, Sam: nice to see you back here.
1. It’s the easiest thing in the world to get ‘offended’. Why would BILLY need a “flame-suit” to protect him from how NOT just me — but many others — genuinely view Lily Allen? Because she’s a “fellow artist?” Lars Ulrich probably cried himself to sleep every night during the Napster hearings. Boo hoo, go buy yourselves another Porsche.
Read back: he made this big damn deal about how “she’s a real person” (as opposed to, say, one of those *inflatable* people you can buy down at the adult video store?), but NOW suddenly it’s specifically about how she’s a “woman”? Bullshit. Grow up, and stop trying to be offended VICARIOUSLY.
Since you obviously get so teary-eyed over how ‘fellow artists’ are portrayed or referenced, I bet the South Park episode with Michael Jackson’s ghost had you weeping in the corner, in the fetal position. You’re just grasping at straws for a halfway plausible reason to be ‘offended’ by what is by any rational appraisal, an ACCURATE assessment of Lily Allen: she not only fell in line behind government/corporate collusion — as did YOU, by the way — but THEN she also whimpered about how much “abuse” she received — AFTER destroying the blog where the alleged ‘abuse’ happened.
It’s bullshit, and if you think I’m simply hammering the “corporate whore” designation because I want to be *mean to her* (OR you), then the “celebrity narcissism” thing I was talking about before isn’t particularly theoretical anymore.
Good luck with trying to have a “substantive discussion” where rule #1 is whenever somebody says “I’m offended” the “offending” post never sees the light of day.
Good luck with the competing moderators, too: that oughta be entertaining.
The trick with moderators — if it’s not going to be just an Eric Cartman-style “Respect Mah Authoritah!” power trip, is for the moderator to be AS IMPARTIAL AS POSSIBLE, which obviously precludes representatives of the two “sides” (who are apt to find different stuff ‘offensive”), from being good candidates:
Yeah, I can see it now:
P2per: “Whaaaah! You called us ‘pirates’ and reffered to what we do as ‘piracy!”
IndustryGuy: “Yeah, but YOU linked to that Lars Ulrich parody, which paints a ‘fellow artist’ in an unfavorable light!”
Bullshit. Ill-conceived, utterly futile, sugar-coated bullshit.
The thing that sealed it for me was the notion of TWO mods, one from each ’side.’ Say anything you want about me, but that just stinks of the thinking behind those “bias committees” composed of folk from various demographic groups (blacks, whites, women, gays, etc.) whose entire job consists of nothing but figuring out what is *likely* to be “offensive” to the most easily-offended member of their particular group, and censoring accordingly.
Absolutely no possibility of “progress” there, folks.
Sorry, Billy: Lily Allen isn’t a “corporate whore” — just a totally wonderful, vibrant woman who *happens* to have done exactly what her corporate paymasters wanted her to do. Oh wait, kinda describes the REST of the FAC and their ‘overwhelming support’ for throttling, now that I think of it.
Jack Valenti was probably a halfway nice fella sometimes, too. He STILL described the VCR as equivalent to the “Boston Strangler” and tried to get congress to ban it.
Have fun with your “sound and fury, signifiying nothing”, guys.
(Who’d a thunk it, a Shakespeare quote, from an ignorant, Pennsylvania Redneck like ME!)
Sam:
Genuinely glad to see you back, buddy.
October 11th, 2009 at 5:23 pm
I hope jon uses https this time
October 11th, 2009 at 5:43 pm
Sam:
Y’know, if I was “into” that kind of whining, I could take “offense” at your mischaracterization of me as: ignorant, uneducated, lacking the ambition to “get into the game”, but I’m not going to, because, strange as it might seem, I’m not the kind of person to take “offense” at every little thing — or even most of the big stuff.
Sure, Sam: you pulled yourself up by your bootstraps, and the *only reason* anybody could *possibly* dissent from your point of view is if they are an ignorant, uneducated, no-ambition type of guy. (Does anybody here maybe see a DIFFERENCE — no matter how subtle it may be — between his pissy jabs at where I live/my lack of ambition/education etc., and the “corporate whore” comment?
Lily, Billy & Sam (kinda like the sound of that!) know EXACTLY what they *want* to know about copyright law etc., and the only reason Billy’s here at all, is because he’s trying to figure out exactly how much he can get away with “monetizing” before people/technology/governments restrain him.
Sonny Bono didn’t like the fact that copyright HAD a limit, and claimed it should last “forever minus a day”. (In other words, fuck the public domain.)
Billy thinks he’s being magnanimous when he “permits” some unspecified “somebody” to quote one of his songs, when even a cursory Google search indicates that — IF such quotation was for the purposes of review/criticism, his “permission” wouldn’t have been required under British copyright law. He has yet to actually answer my question about that, by the way: WAS the quotation going to be used for criticism or review, or not?
He also claims that giving the British government the power to monitor/throttle people’s accounts is somehow “better” than giving them the power to monitor AND DISCONNECT those accounts. Sure, Billy.
If you ask me, Billy’s whole pretended offense at Lily Allen’s corporate whoredom is nothing but an attempt to dodge actually answering questions. Haven’t any of you noticed that he usually responds to points with some variant of “it’s very late, I’ll get back to it later”, but NEVER ACTUALLY DOES?
Given obfuscatory tactics like Billy’s, your proposed “moderator tag-team” combing the blog for anything that somebody, somewhere, for some indeterminate reason might find “offensive”, and the fact that folks like Sam just aren’t that interested in learning about what copyright law was intended to actually *do* (remember kids: the expiration of copyright “takes” something from his daughter!)
You guys call this “progress?”
I gotta say, though: Nice logo.
October 11th, 2009 at 6:11 pm
Billy:
“Some of the other internet forums discussing this issue that I’ve dipped into are almost comically dismissive of anyone who questions the group-think. Asking why do you post here, you clearly don’t agree with us etc etc. Where we are going will be no place for dittoheads. I expect the arguments to be heated but constructive, with difficult issues confronted with facts not dismissed with rhetoric.”
So have you even glanced at the Lessig stuff yet, or are you and Jon just going to keep ballyhooing this new site’s presumed sheer level of awesomeness? I can absolutely guarantee you that ALL internet forums exhibit at least some of what you mentioned, because EVERY conversation, discussion, or group of people inevitably exhibits it, whether that “group” is Internet-based, or not:
At any given time, you’ll have a “majority” position, and a ‘minority’ position, and that’s when the “groupthink” kicks in.
But if you want to talk about “groupthink”, let’s talk about it: Let’s talk about the fact that SOME of you guys knew that throttling won’t work, but you voted for it anyway. Y’ever heard of “abstention”, Billy? Either cast a dissenting vote, be outvoted, but stand your ground, or DON’T vote at all. Don’t vote for something horrible and doomed to fail simply because it’s the “best you can get from the room”.
I’ve been accused by several people (oddly enough, even Jon himself) of exhibiting “rage” over this, when I know full well that he *agrees* with me on the FAC thing, but is evidently too giddy over the sheer unprecedented awesomeness this af2fa thing supposedly presents to dare to call you out on it. He and a few others — for whatever reason — seem to actually believe that this WON’T simply turn into what every other discussion in human history has turned into.
I disagree, and the reasons should be obvious by now.
Lando:
“I think it will ultimately fail as trolls will take it over in no time. Constructive debate will turn ugly the second posters like Sam I am get their space to post. Just take a look at the Canadian copyright consultation website for a look at what happens to constructive debate when industry ’shills’ (I said it here because I wont be able to say it on a2f2a) sick their paid trolls on it.”
How *could* you???? Don’t you *realize* that Sam is a “real person” with “feelings?”
Besides, Billy’s probably fuming vicariously over how you characterized a “fellow” member of the entertainment industry.
October 11th, 2009 at 6:23 pm
A couple of actual questions here:
First, is the new site only going to be used for music p2p/copyright/etc., or are we also allowed to discuss video p2p, because it’s been shown that video p2p overtook music p2p a while ago, in numbers of video files and people.
And if video p2p is also to be discussed, shouldn’t there be reps like actors, actresses, techs, directors, producers, etc. (all both indie and major studios of the MPAA – just as FAC is composed of mostly RIAA-contracted artists)?
And if not, then why not? Are you going to make a new separate website for video p2p?
I can see this becoming popular and getting some headlines on CNN and BBC news for a few weeks, but after the dust has settled and the “debate” has circled around itself a few dozen times in the first couple of weeks, then what? It’s a short matter of time until it gets boring and tedious, arguind and debateing all of the same things over and over again – exactly the same thing that happens here time and again. It’s monotonous and gets old very quickly.
Even if Billy Bragg can convince a few of the other FAC members to register and take part, neither they, nor Billy Bragg, nor Jon can change laws in the UK, USA, Canada, or every other country on the planet.
The debate has been going on for donkey’s years already. Even if we hear from some other top draw names…still, what then? There isn’t going to be any kind of global public vote on anything.
And until performers break free from cartel control (or never go to them at all) the RIAA and MPAA and all others are destroyed, nothing can change – because they (the cartels) don’t want it to change.
So after the debate (two weeks, give or take), what then?
October 11th, 2009 at 6:35 pm
“So after the debate (two weeks, give or take), what then?”
Then McAffee rates the site a danger to society to prevent people from seeing it.
October 11th, 2009 at 7:33 pm
“Even if Billy Bragg can convince a few of the other FAC members to register and take part, neither they, nor Billy Bragg, nor Jon can change laws in the UK, USA, Canada, or every other country on the planet.”
But People Pressure can.
When Jim Prentice tried to ram through a Canadian version of the Digital Millenium Copyright Act, he managed to get it tabled in the House of Commons. But that was it. What stopped him dead? A massive online outcry even Canadian primate minister George W. Harper couldn’t ignore.
Nor are the laws even on the books. And if they ever are implemented, their existence will brief — and painful for the government concerned. Sarkozy thought he had it made in France. But not yet. And French people aren’t renowned for letting their politicians defecate all over them.
“The debate has been going on for donkey’s years already.”
Not this debate.
“Even if we hear from some other top draw names…still, what then? There isn’t going to be any kind of global public vote on anything.”
People will vote. With their wallets, and Person-2-Person. And they’ll vote online.
On the FAC 3 strikes thing, I am indeed 100% against it. But I understand Billy’s predicament and in his position, I might have done the same.
My daughter has a kind of joke. She holds up three fingers instead of just her middle finger and says, ‘Read between the lines’.
Video p2p? Defiitely something which has to be taken into account.
Cheers!
October 11th, 2009 at 7:52 pm
Where you’re from isn’t important. It’s where you are, and what you learned getting here that counts. The degrees you’ve been awarded don’t matter. It’s the degree to which you can apply what you know to what you feel, and make other people understand it, even if they don’t agree with it. This isn’t personal, and passion will not work as a substitute for reason. Passion AND reason? Great! Passion alone? Perhaps we will be able to feel your pain, but that isn’t going to move the conversation, and we need to move the conversation. Nodoby’s got a natural edge here.
I hope the discussion doesn’t devolve into an inspection of the minutiae of copyright law. That’s a dead end, and you can take that from someone who lives and works there. We won’t find solutions among the technicalities because there aren’t any there, and even if we did, the rules would probably change before we actually started working toward a common goal. The world has gone beyond that, and it is up to us to find a new equilibrium for the rights and interests of artists, consumers and those that would act as a conduit between them, be they called labels, or podcasters or radio stations or some things we haven’t named or thought of yet. Copyright law as we know it was a pretty smart way to balance interests, but copyright law was based on the ability of controlling distribution of creative works, and that ability is dead, although the legal trappings still work, as the thousands of RIAA lawsuit defendants have learned. Those lawsuits tell us that copyright will not work to either prevent unauthorized distribution or reasonably compensate the creators. All the evidence is there in the wreckage, and we need to look outside the blast zone to find the next set of answers. Copyright wasn’t handed down as the 11th Commandment. It was a human invention designed to deal with a specific set of technical and economic facts. The technology and the economics have changed. Trying to force the future into the confines of copyright law is like requiring car owners to carry oats and water to feed their horses. The fact that you can pass a law requiring such a thing does not mean the law makes any sense, or will have any impact. If we are to enjoy the work of a professional class of artists in the future, they, and we, have to get smarter, fast.
I think we need to focus on how we reestablish the connection between performer and fan. Whether or not one is a “whore” for following a particular model is not only unimportant, but irrelevant. All that should matter is whether or not you like what you hear, or read, or see, and if you like it, how you support the people who created it, and delivered it. We need to take a look at every tool we have available. If X says “[This] will work,” he should be able to explain both the how and the why. If someone disagrees with him, that person should be able to focus on the how and the why and leave their opinion of X out of it. As for “shills” of all stripes, they’ll be obvious because they may make the right noises for their arguments, but they don’t know why they do. Supporting “throttling,” which might or might not work, is as empty a gesture as anonymously shouting “I’m going to download whatever I want and you can’t stop me!” because, if they want to stop you, they can.
Who really knows if this is going to work? I only know that I have been trying to engage proponents of the current regime in constructive conversation for years, and, because I’m not in a position where they need my vote to pass legislation favorable to them, they have not deigned to acknowledge my existence most of the time. Billy Bragg isn’t the High Priest of the Status Quo, but he’s willing to find out if there might be a better way, and he’s willing to tell us what he thinks. That isn’t going to change things all by itself, but his participation elevates the conversation far beyond where its been for more than a decade. Let’s get to it.
October 11th, 2009 at 8:37 pm
@ Fred:
If I drank, I’d drink to that.
Cheers!
October 11th, 2009 at 8:42 pm
Reader’s Write,
Video p2p will be part of this debate for sure, but lets start with music, because that’s where the real battle is just now.
So after the debate, what then?
The debate needs to be more than just a forum for discussion. We should be aiming to frame definitions of terms like p2p and outlining how artists can make a living from the internet. If, for instance, we can come up with clear evidence based on more than just hearsay, that p2p is beneficial to artists, we then need to start taking that message beyond the net, out into the mainstream media and into the industry forums.
My hope is that the p2p community will find a voice that is respected and listened to, that is confident enough to make its case at the highest levels, a voice so powerful that the industry cannot ignore it. Our ultimate goal is to come up with arguments so persuasive that they are forced to acknowledge not only Fred, but Jon and everyone else on here and all the other p2p forums on the net.
October 11th, 2009 at 9:01 pm
Billy is right.
In other words, this should at the least be a two way street. At the moment, though, it’s only a one-way dirt — with emphasis on the word ‘dirt’ — track, thanks to the labels.
Now, we’re going to work together to pave it and turn it into an eight-lane highway.
I really believe we can do that.
Cheers!
October 11th, 2009 at 9:23 pm
Thanks, Billy.
but you said you need “…clear evidence based on more than just hearsay, that p2p is beneficial to artists, we then need to start taking that message beyond the net, out into the mainstream media and into the industry forums.”
The evidence is out there already, but they continue to call p2pers “thieves” and “pirates” when nothing is stolen and their revenue rises to record (no pun intended) levels. The labels’ own financial reports and press releases show increases in sales – not decreases. Even the BPI have stated clearly and publicly that more CDs are being sold now than just 10 years ago, and they see future sales continuing to rise.
So if the artists are/are not being paid enough/at all, and any copyright/ownership/artists’ rights are disputed, the real problem (financially and legally regarding artists’ rights) is solely between the artist and the label. CDs, merchandise, concert tix are being sold even at the outrageous prices they demand. If you aren’t getting your fair share, that has nothing to do with p2p and/or sales.
October 11th, 2009 at 9:28 pm
@ RW: “The evidence is out there already …”
True. Now we need to let musicans know that.
Cheers!
October 11th, 2009 at 9:35 pm
Those last two long Reader’s Writes above you both replied to were by me. I’ve been having pc/keyboard/logging in problems – and I kept forgetting to sign my name at the end of my message.
Thanks for the replies.
But I think I got it sorted now – well, some of it anyway.
October 11th, 2009 at 9:52 pm
Billy,
The obligations run both ways here. Everybody has to be held to the same standard on evidence. So much industry propaganda is based on the premise that a p2p download equals a “lost” sale, and that filesharing is the only reason why the industry is sinking. A big part of the industry’s credibility problem stems from the fact that it doesn’t take an advanced degree to see the flaws in those arguments, but they’ve never been held to accountability on what they say, so the misinformation gets repeated to the point where it is “received wisdom.” To be blunt, one of my primary objectives in this discussion is to get you to the point where you say “You may or may not be right, but I can’t trust their numbers, either.” We need to start even, or get to a point where we are on an even playing field.
It’s always struck me as strange that artists who know their labels are fudging royalty calculations are willing to accept without any proof arguments about losses from filesharing. There’s really no sense to go into this thing with your eyes closed to ALL the reality.
Fred
October 11th, 2009 at 9:55 pm
The FAC website states very clearly (and I think BB also gave the same view here) that they absolutely do not agree with the premise that a download equals a lost sale, and view that idea as ridiculous propaganda.
October 11th, 2009 at 10:31 pm
Jon:
“On the FAC 3 strikes thing, I am indeed 100% against it. But I understand Billy’s predicament and in his position, I might have done the same.”
And if you *did* so, such an action would at BEST qualify as a token show of “resistance” to the labels, “pressure” notwithstanding.
Fred:
“Whether you’re a “whore” for following a particular model…..”
What if that “model” involves throwing your support behind a corporate-owned intrusion into everybody’s lives, and then being “teary and eloquent” when people don’t like it?
THAT”s the point that’s been conveniently ignored up until now:
Billy’d rather dance around these issues than simply come clean and admit that, whether he “intended” it or not, voting for throttling played *right* into the corporate lobbyist’ hands, as did Lily’s whole schtick.
“I’ve always found it strange that artists….”
Agreed 100%, which is why Billy’s “defence” of Ms. Allen isn’t particularly convincing, to say the least. She — and others like her, presumably — “hate” the labels and know their being lied to, but somehow feel absolutely no compunctions whatsoever either parroting those corpoations’ anti-p2p propaganda (Lily’s tactic), OR throwing ‘overwhelming’ support behind those who do, while also voting for 3-strikes nonsense.
Sorry — and please realize that I’m trying to be REALLY NICE and tactful here — but, as has been said numerous times already — handing the labels exactly what they wanted basically amounts to capitulation — NOT “resistance”. Not a “Strategic trump-card” or any of the other ways Billy’s tried to sugar-coat it, but capitulation in total.
Jon:
“Nor are the laws even on the books. And if they ever are implemented, their existence will brief — and painful for the government concerned. Sarkozy thought he had it made in France. But not yet. And French people aren’t renowned for letting their politicians defecate all over them.”
Sarkoszy had to ram the 3-strikes thing down the legislature’s throats what, 3 times? Or maybe it was 4.
He didn’t have the inestimable advantage of an “artist lobby” backing him, did he?
The FAC website — and Billy — can SAY they don’t believe downloads equal lost sales, or make any other pro-p2p noises they want to make, but to the extent that EVEN the ones who DON’T agree with the labels’ propaganda (like Billy) VOTE FOR IT ANYWAY, it’s complete crap.
So what ARE we “debating” exactly? Discussions about new revenue models aren’t going to get anywhere, until ALL sides admit that there’s always going to be a fairly-large swath of applications/uses where you CAN’T monetize.
Whether it takes the form of a drastically-larger Public domain due to reduced copyright terms, or the simple fact that — as Billy so eloquently put it over in the other thread, “the internet community is always going to be one step ahead”. If you don’t “permit” such uses, you’ll just alienate people from paying you at ALL.
Y’know what would be a good step, Billy? How about a compilation-album of FAC artists explicitly released under some sort of Creative Commons license, and distributed via Bittorrent? Hell, the Canadian Pirate Party runs their own tracker, and Jon’s in Canada.
Just an idea. I can see how you might not be *able* to do it, if some/most of the FAC membership didn’t manage to get the favorable terms that Billy did (”licensing” rather than selling his copyright to the labels etc.) Then again, if the FAC members are held hostage by the labels in that way, we shouldn’t really EXPECT them to be able to offer any real dissent from preferred label policy (except maybe token gestures like “throttled, not disconnected”.)
Genuinely sorry if any of that came across to ANYBODY as “argumentative”, but really, there’s no way to tone it down any further, and still be able to SAY anything, if that makes any sense.
Good points, Fred.
October 11th, 2009 at 10:38 pm
“When Jim Prentice tried to ram through a Canadian version of the Digital Millenium Copyright Act, he managed to get it tabled in the House of Commons. But that was it. What stopped him dead? A massive online outcry even Canadian primate minister George W. Harper couldn’t ignore.”
“Primate Minister”?
You calling him a monkey, Jon?
(Hell, at least my “corporate whore” thing implicitly allowed Lily “Real Person” Allen to retain her status as HUMAN.
Feh, whatever.
October 11th, 2009 at 10:41 pm
Well, I’d like to ask a question about something henry’s been hammering on about recently, namely the throttling/three strikes issue.
Billy, was there an actual, official vote on the issue by all FAC members, or just the board members, or just the ones who attended that meeting?
Could/would you tell us if you yourself voted Yea or Nay, or was there just a majority of members/board members for it and all the names of the members presentwere attached to it in the Air Statement of 24th September 2009?
I’m asking, not to invade your right to privacy on the vote (if there was a real vote), but because the subject has been mentioned a few times and I think it would be helpful to know where specific members stand on that issue. And hopefully other FAC members who appear on the new website could also enlighten us as to why they voted for or against.
Thanks.
October 11th, 2009 at 10:48 pm
Henry said ” Fred:
“What if that “model” involves throwing your support behind a corporate-owned intrusion into everybody’s lives, and then being “teary and eloquent” when people don’t like it?”
You beat the model, you don’t beat the artist. You’re aiming too low, Henry.
October 11th, 2009 at 10:49 pm
“If we are to enjoy the work of a professional class of artists in the future, they, and we, have to get smarter, fast. ”
Which brings us RIGHT back to where we began. What constitutes a “professional class of artists”?
Do they *deserve* to become multi-billionaires? Does their revenue *have to* come in the form or “royalties” or will they accept the collossal indignity involved in what “Sam I Am” denigrated as “tipping”?
Face it, folks: by the corporate music industry’s OWN reckoning, their “product” has a 99 percent failure-rate, in that only 1 percent of what they produce actually makes a profit. That dismal outcome is one of the reasons they keep buying themselves longer copyright terms (which are retroactively applied, by the way), whenever expiration-time comes up.
So that’s the FIRST step, before any other discussion/debate is even possible: realizing that the particular “business-model” promoted/forced down our throats by a few absurdly-wealthy multinational corporations and their various lobbying front-groups (RIAA, BREIN, IFPI — AND FAC), has ALWAYS been a dismal failure, even if it HAS allowed a vanishingly-small number of artists/performers to become multi-billionaires, with crowds of people falling over themselves to get an autograph.
Some people (Sam, for one) may dismiss the p2p thing as an instance of “tall poppy syndrome”.
It’s not, but that’s one of the things we always get.
So long as major-label ‘celebrities’ CONTINUE to approach things from the “celebrity” mindset, they are bound to just dismiss any and all criticism of the business-model that GIVES them that “celebrity” lifestyle, out of hand.
Somthing for Y’all to chew on.
October 11th, 2009 at 10:53 pm
“So if the artists are/are not being paid enough/at all, and any copyright/ownership/artists’ rights are disputed, the real problem (financially and legally regarding artists’ rights) is solely between the artist and the label. CDs, merchandise, concert tix are being sold even at the outrageous prices they demand. If you aren’t getting your fair share, that has nothing to do with p2p and/or sales.”
Bingo! — which is why throwing even conditional support behind stuff like 3-strikes disqualifies FAC from any further serious consideration as any kind of “ally” in my book.
Obama just got the Nobel Peace prize, but he’s continuing Bush’s military fiasco, no end in sight.
Yeah, baby…..smell the “reform”.
October 11th, 2009 at 11:03 pm
“You beat the model, you don’t beat the artist. You’re aiming too low, Henry.”
What does that even mean?
If the artist SUPPORTS that “model”, and the model is challenged/beaten, then the artist INEVITABLY ends up beaten as well.
Just ask Lars and the rest of Metalica. Just ask Lily Allen. Both instances where the artists — for whatever reason — chose to throw their support behind an extremely unpopular position. To the extent that the artists SUPPORTS a given “model”, they BECOME that model — especially when they throw their support behind government intervention to PRESERVE it.
Public domain advocates/lobbyists obviously support the public domain, Sonny Bono didn’t think there SHOULD be a public domain (”Forever minus a day” remember?)
Catflap:
I’ll save Billy some effort on this one:
Quoting him from the other thread:
“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.”
Yes, he voted for it. Even though he knew it will fail, as a “clear marker to government” that they’ll “fight disconnection” by supporting throttling instead.
If I’m “aiming” anywhere, it’s squarely at those who allow themselves to become the “public face” of the corporate music/entertainment industry/their lobbying front-groups. Simple as that.
October 11th, 2009 at 11:19 pm
Ok then. But Billy, do you actually agree with it, or not? I would have voted against, and maybe that’s because I’m a filesharer, but also because I don’t think the government or an ISP has the right to do such things – even if they say or think they do. Some things are just wrong. If I pay my internet connection bills on time (and I do), I expect to receive the service I pay for.
And proof of this is in the fact that ISPs have recently begun to state they do not want to be involved, and many refuse to do the dirty work asked of them.
So Billy, do you really agree to the throttling/three strikes proposal, or did you really only just vote for it under duress? I think a Nay vote would have rung much louder than anything else.
Thanks.
October 12th, 2009 at 1:24 am
I don’t know about Y’all, but my babble is what matters. I would open the Henry blog, but I prefer to pollute other peoples blogs with my babble.
Feel free to refer to me as Mr. ridiculous.
Thanks Y’all.
October 12th, 2009 at 1:24 am
63 Comments. wow
October 12th, 2009 at 1:48 am
Answers interspersed. Henry’s comments from two posts in quotes.
“What constitutes a “professional class of artists”?
“People creating things that other people are willing to pay for the pleasure of enjoying.”
“Do they *deserve* to become multi-billionaires?”
Only if consumers are willing to pay billions for the pleasure of enjoying their work. Otherwise, they *deserve* what they earn.
“Does their revenue *have to* come in the form or “royalties” or will they accept the collossal indignity involved in what “Sam I Am” denigrated as “tipping”?”
Neither. This is not a limited option situation, Henry. There are many economic models that don’t depend on either royalties or the tip jar.
“Face it, folks: by the corporate music industry’s OWN reckoning, their “product” has a 99 percent failure-rate, in that only 1 percent of what they produce actually makes a profit. That dismal outcome is one of the reasons they keep buying themselves longer copyright terms (which are retroactively applied, by the way), whenever expiration-time comes up.”
This is the kind of gross overstatement and self-contradiction I am hoping we can avoid when the actual discussion begins. The supposed industry “failure rate” isn’t anywhere near 99% when you consider that the standard major label deal involves creators trading copyrights for cash payments. Those copyrights are worth plenty, which is why the industry seeks to extend them (that’s the self-contradictory part – if they’re losing money, why hold on to the copyrights? The answer is that everyone knows those copyrights have commercial value). The fact that an individual record release may not immediately make back its costs does not make the deal a failure.
“So that’s the FIRST step, before any other discussion/debate is even possible: realizing that the particular “business-model” promoted/forced down our throats by a few absurdly-wealthy multinational corporations and their various lobbying front-groups (RIAA, BREIN, IFPI — AND FAC), has ALWAYS been a dismal failure, even if it HAS allowed a vanishingly-small number of artists/performers to become multi-billionaires, with crowds of people falling over themselves to get an autograph.”
You appear to believe that the major label business model is the only one currently in existence. It isn’t. And it hasn’t ALWAYS been a dismal failure. The model has failed because the fundamental premise it was built on collapsed; the absolute control of distribution. For most of the 20th century, the high cost of entry into record production, manufacturing and distribution gave those inside the game that control. The advent of the digitalization of music removed the impediment of cost for production and manufacturing, and made distribution as easy as sending an email. The industry was absolutely right to consider filesharing an infringement on their copyrights, but they blundered when they believed that enforcing copyright through the courts would preserve their advantage. They can win every court case forever and not stop filesharing. That much ought to be obvious by now.
And it may come as something of a shock to you, but there are still many artists out there who are more than willing to be part of the old system. That’s what “American Idol” is all about. They want a chance to grab the brass ring, and as long as they know what they are doing, they should have the chance to do so, if there’s some label willing to take them on. I firmly believe that we will always have the major labels with us. They may not look much like what they look like now, but there’s one thing they still do better than anyone else; finance the marketing and promotion machinery that makes artists into household words. There’s a consumer base out there that makes stars out of the Pussy Cat Dolls and Kevin Federline, and they will not be denied.
The charm of the present day situation is that we know that business model isn’t the only one available for artists, and that it is largely self-limiting to groups that can immediately deliver a mass audience throwing money at it. By definition, that’s not going to be on the cutting edge of music. There’s a growing middle class of music creators out there. There may be fewer leased Escalades out there, but there are more paid-off mini-vans. And that’s a healthy thing for artists and for fans. We need to figure out how the models that encourage this can be promoted.
“Some people (Sam, for one) may dismiss the p2p thing as an instance of “tall poppy syndrome”.
It’s not, but that’s one of the things we always get.”
So we’ll deal with that when the argument is made.
“So long as major-label ‘celebrities’ CONTINUE to approach things from the “celebrity” mindset, they are bound to just dismiss any and all criticism of the business-model that GIVES them that “celebrity” lifestyle, out of hand.”
and then from the next post:
“”You beat the model, you don’t beat the artist. You’re aiming too low, Henry.”
What does that even mean?.”
You’re aiming too low again. Criticizing the people who hold opinions doesn’t even start to address their opinions. It means that calling Lily Allen a whore says absolutely nothing about her opinion on filesharing, except that you don’t share it. It doesn’t even begin to tell us what’s on YOUR mind. It’s useless noise and it’s counterproductive, that’s what it means.
“If the artist SUPPORTS that “model”, and the model is challenged/beaten, then the artist INEVITABLY ends up beaten as well.”
You have the actual relationship backwards, unless you actually believe that by beating the artist you defeat the model.
“Just ask Lars and the rest of Metalica. Just ask Lily Allen. Both instances where the artists — for whatever reason — chose to throw their support behind an extremely unpopular position. To the extent that the artists SUPPORTS a given “model”, they BECOME that model — especially when they throw their support behind government intervention to PRESERVE it.”
That’s just specious reasoning. They don’t “become” what they advocate outside the minds of a set of people who cannot draw the distinction between the speaker and the thing being said.
“Public domain advocates/lobbyists obviously support the public domain, Sonny Bono didn’t think there SHOULD be a public domain (”Forever minus a day” remember?)”
I don’t really recall public domain advocates attacking copyright extension on the grounds that it must be bad because Sony Bono supported it (because he BECAME copyright extension and supported government intervention in favor of it, as per your formula), but that seems to be what you’re driving at. And if they did, it didn’t work, did it?
So maybe it is time to enter into a discussion where the past is prologue, where we deal with the deeper meaning of what Lily Allen said rather than waste time calling her names for saying it. If she honestly holds those opinions, she should be able to justify them when they are challenged. Calling her names takes time and energy away from that effort
The people carrying the message aren’t the problem, Henry. The message is the problem. Railing at Lily Allen doesn’t. You admit “If I’m “aiming” anywhere, it’s squarely at those who allow themselves to become the “public face” of the corporate music/entertainment industry/their lobbying front-groups. Simple as that.” I would appreciate it if you could explain how aiming there promotes a solution. I don’t know why you think you are qualified to determine who can hold what opinions and who cannot, and I don’t care.
October 12th, 2009 at 3:11 am
Fred:
1. Okay, FIVE percent of albums are profitable — according to the label executives themselves:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/2603544/Carly-Smithson-The-Brief-Career-of-Carly-Hennessy
As to the supposedly ’self-contradictory” aspect of why they’d lobby for copyright term extensions:
Two words: “Beatles Remixes”.
Sorry I had the percentages wrong, Fred.
2. As to the other thing? You “become” the public face of a cause when you lobby for that cause. That’s why Sarkoszy appears hypocritical when he rams the 3-strikes thing down French voters’ throats, and then gets caught out “pirating” media.
It’s also why Lily Allen’s “Mixtape” fiasco made her anti-p2p stance ring extremely hollow with *some* people (hence all the purported ‘abuse’ heaped upon her in the blog she conveniently deleted, etc.)
It’s also why voting for a watered-down version of 3-strikes doesn’t make Billy Bragg — or the FAC, for that matter — look very “p2p-friendly”, his debate here notwithstanding.
“I don’t recall public domain advocates attacking copyright extension because Sonny Bono supported it”
No, but Sonny Bono *did* throw some very public support behind the label’s efforts to get copyright extension. Was he “manipulated” by the labels? Did he do it under “duress?” Or was it simply celebrity narcissism and the ego-stroking of his fans?
Ultimately it makes precious little difference *why* he supported the labels’ efforts to get copyright terms extended, except maybe as a psychological excersise of some kind. Lily Allen *did* throw very public support behind Mandelson’s 3-strikes thing (as did Billy). They may have done it for different reasons (Lily through ignorance, Billy as a misguided ’strategic trump-card’), but they both did it, nonetheless.
And I gotta ask, Fred: how exactly is anybody going to “dialog” with anti-p2p celebrities WITHOUT getting into the “minutae of copyright law” (or at least, some historical background). Let’s assume Billy’s right, and they back the labels because what the labels tell them is “all the have to go on”. How exactly do you even BEGIN to address that, without at least TOUCHING on topics like copyright, fair-use, the public domain, etc.?
As to the other person “spoofing” me (again): thanks, Yall
You’ve just illustrated yet another problem with this a2f2a thing: Just how long do you think it’ll be before somebody signs on as Mick Jagger or Lawrence Lessig or somebody like that, under false pretenses?
Look at how skeptical people were a few days ago, when Bragg started posting here. Numerous instances of “Bragg (if that’s really your name)” type skepticism. How exactly do any of you guys intend to protect against that?
And Yes, Fred, I do get what you’re saying about fighting the labels, not the artists.
But what about with a case where the labels give the artists what they “need” in exchange for becoming the labels’ poster-children?
For instance (using my Sonny Bono example from earlier), assuming it was an issue of “artistic control” for him. The labels’ can exploit that easily by making the artist nervous about how shorter copyright terms/legalized noncommercial file-sharing etc. deprives them of “control”, so that their music might be used in a way they don’t like.
Billy mentioned this in the other thread, in a response to Crosbie about how copyright was important to him because without it, how would he keep his music from being used by a right-wing political party. (Paraphrasing, but Crosbie and Billy will know exactly what I’m referencing.)
I just don’t see how any discussion CAN get anywhere without going into topics like copyright, whether DRM will work, whether the labels are lying, etc. etc.
October 12th, 2009 at 3:20 am
“You appear to believe that the major label business model is the only one currently in existence. It isn’t. And it hasn’t ALWAYS been a dismal failure. The model has failed because the fundamental premise it was built on collapsed; the absolute control of distribution. For most of the 20th century, the high cost of entry into record production, manufacturing and distribution gave those inside the game that control. The advent of the digitalization of music removed the impediment of cost for production and manufacturing, and made distribution as easy as sending an email. The industry was absolutely right to consider filesharing an infringement on their copyrights, but they blundered when they believed that enforcing copyright through the courts would preserve their advantage. They can win every court case forever and not stop filesharing. That much ought to be obvious by now.”
1. I fully realize that the major-labels have NEVER been the “only” business-model out there:
Other music genres (Bluegrass, Jazz, Punk, etc.) have always existed. Hell, there was even a gay specialty label (”Camp Records”) that sold it’s stuff from small ads at the back of beefcake magazines):
http://www.queermusicheritage.us/camp.html
2. I *realize* p2p — and other aspects of digital media distribution — have drastically lowered the “barriers to entry” and suchlike. That “growing middle-class of artists” you’re talking about is a wonderful thing. But it also that expanding pallete of potential business-models which makes the Major Labels’ perpetual screw-job MUCH more difficult.
Now you can have a potentially global audience WITHOUT “signing”, which is in itself a fairly substantive type of leverage against the labels.
Hence their crusade to punish p2p ‘piracy’, demonize file-sharing, link it to terrorism, get government to help them sue regular people into destitution, etc. etc.
And that’s why leaving Billy, or LIly, or Lars or anybody else signed to those labels (and benefiting from the prestige that STILL obtains to such status), is a bad move, especially when they help their corporate bosses to do bad things like 3-strikes.
October 12th, 2009 at 3:35 am
I’m doing this as separate posts because I tend to be rather wordy sometimes (like you didn’t already realize that!)
“The industry was absolutely right to consider filesharing an infringement on their copyrights”
Which they keep lobbying to have extended (retroactively) every few years.
What is it? Fifteen times in the last thirty years?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Term_Extension_Act
Now Fred: there *has* to be a reason for them to keep doing that. Somebody’s obviously getting some advantage out of the deal. Maybe it’s the continued ability to license sampling, even from relatively obscure albums that didn’t break gold or anything?
(Prime example of this is how Beck Hansen used samples from the 1960s garage-rock group “Them” extensively on his album “Odelay”)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Them_(band)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Odelay
(You wanted links, I’ll be the first one to oblige.)
“but they blundered when they believed that enforcing copyright through the courts would preserve their advantage. They can win every court case forever and not stop filesharing. That much ought to be obvious by now.”
NOW who’s being “self-contradictory”, Fred?
Quoting you from a while back:
“Supporting “throttling,” which might or might not work, is as empty a gesture as anonymously shouting “I’m going to download whatever I want and you can’t stop me!” because, if they want to stop you, they can.”
So which is it, Fred: Can “they” (the labels/their cronies in various governments/signed artists supportive of their actions for whatever reason) “stop” filesharing — or file-sharers — or can’t they?
Besides — as has been mentioned by others here already — the corporate “entertainment industry” — “major” labels, film studios, etc. — have been reporting record profits, despite all the hysteria they’re trying to drum up about p2p ‘piracy’. Their doing FINE. They’ve been doing fine since Napster.
Of course *we* know that p2p and the major labels can (or at any rate, COULD) co-exist. They’ve been “coexisting” for a decade. It’d be really really nice if the RIAA member corporations would stop trying to kill every new p2p-related startup, and suing people willy-nilly.
October 12th, 2009 at 7:13 am
Henry,
It’s not going to be a very constructive dialogue if we dismiss the views of anybody signed to a record labels and benefiting from the prestige that still obtains to such status. You seem to be on your own private crusade to demonize anyone who wants to make a living in the music industry.
How are we going to get around the problem of false attribution of posts? Dredd’s point above – anonymity. I like to take that further by suggesting that we keep the debate focused on issues by not referring to any proper names, personal or corporate.
Fred,
I totally accept that obligations run both ways. I was just flagging up the fact that we artists need the input of this community to verify what some of us intuitively believe – that p2p activity is a benefit to artists, not a threat. The facts will need to be pretty solid, because the industry will do everything to pull the numbers apart. Reader’s Write says the evidence is out there, but we are going to have to come up with better examples. Are the artists emerging with the support of p2p recommendation?
catflap,
The vote – there was a room of 60 or so self-selected artists who came together at the invitation of FAC. We had about 12 members there and did not discuss a strategy beforehand. What soon became clear was that there was a strong opinion in the room that some kind of sanction was necessary. Many artists still accept the labels argument that p2p is a menace. This is partly because they never hear any opinion to the contrary, but also because the industry conflates sharing with exploitation, refusing to see any difference between p2p use and commercial piracy. I’m hoping this dialogue can shed some light on this issue for artists.
I didn’t vote for it under duress and no, I don’t believe that it will solve the problem. So why did I vote for bandwidth reduction? Because it was the best outcome that we could have got given the room and the people in it. The industry didn’t get what it wanted from us, which was acquiescence to their demands for disconnection. For the first time, artists spoke and they did not agree with their masters. Now, some people here are not prepared to recognise that small but important difference. Henry conflates everyone signed to a record label as evil, just as the labels conflate p2p with the worse excesses of piracy. It suits their agenda, just as it suits Henry’s.
While that might be difficult for some of you to accept, the fact that I voted for sanctions is the only thing that gives me credibility with my fellow artists in the debate that we are having. If I had taken the hard line that Henry wanted me to do, I simply couldn’t be here doing this. The industry would dismiss me as a good man fallen among file-sharers. My credibility hinges on the fact that I do not sign up 100% to the beliefs of the p2p community.
October 12th, 2009 at 8:20 am
http://www.zeropaid.com/news/87098/new-blog-will-let-artists-music-fans-solve-p2p/
a2f2a is an, “honest and heartfelt attempt to solve a problem that both music artists and their file-sharing fans agree exists, but more often than not disagree on how best to solve it.
“Now we have an opportunity for both to work together and change that.”
Cheers! And thanks, Jared.
October 12th, 2009 at 8:21 am
I currently administrate a website with over 40K members where I served as a moderator for years. It’s tough trying to keep a good discussion from degenerating. You make some ground rules but ultimately enforcing those rules is a judgment call. You pick people to those positions not because of their particular views, but for their ability to step outside of a discussion and objectively evaluate what’s appropriate and what’s not.
Telling somebody that their argument is invalid because clearly they’re a dirty rotten pirate still living in their mother’s basement is not appropriate. Neither are words like “whore.” Saying “falls in step behind corporate paymasters” is probably okay. Telling Billy Bragg that you feel like he values his standing in “the industry” too much is fine. Telling him that he’s wrong and what’s more, his music sucks is off-track.
It doesn’t come down what might possibly offend one person, but what is clearly going to take the discussion off track. On my site, which catered to a younger demographic, we ended up having to ban talk of religion because coming-of-age kids would try to spread their newfound faith/lack of faith far and wide, and it got to be too much. Much of the decisions on a2f2a are going to come from experience, but it’s probably safe to say right off the bat that calling people “thieves” or “shills” would be inappropriate.
In discussing any issue that has merit, there are going to be heated opinions and strong (not vulgar) language. Moderation is not about limiting that but about keeping it in its place – it’s all too easy for people (myself included) to let their arguments spiral out of control. A good moderator stops that when it happens and creates an environment where people think before they hit “submit.”
October 12th, 2009 at 8:28 am
@ SW:
Well said.
Cheers!
October 12th, 2009 at 8:42 am
The quality of debate on this page gives me hope for the success of a2f2a; I hope everyone here will be active participants. If we set a high standard of debate from the off, it will encourage others to follow that example.
What do people think about the idea of having a profile page for signed up users (ie everyone who can post) where they can give a basic overview of where they’re coming from? (eg I am a composer and performer, writer about music, developer and p2p user.) Obviously people would be free to leave it blank if they want, but I think it might be useful to put people’s comments in context.
Looking forward to helping get this off the ground.
Chris
October 12th, 2009 at 9:07 am
@ thepeer:
Really good idea.
Cheers!
October 12th, 2009 at 9:53 am
Billy, thanks again for the clarification on the vote – but I can’t agree with your reasoning for your yes vote on sanctions, because even though there were only 60 people present and only 12 were FAC members, it still can start a chain of events or opinions that perpetuates a sort of “mob mentality” (supported and promoted by major labels), especially by current and future FAC members who buy/want to buy into the dream of becoming famous and wealthy with their help (the prestige and status you mention).
As far as evidence needed to support the claim that p2p has no negative effect on sales, as I said the evidence comes directly from the major labels and the organisations they’re associated with.
If you believe even more evidence is needed to show “…what artists emerging with the support of p2p recommendation?”
Obviously you know that not all artists are successful or as successful as they hope to become, whether or not they’re attached to a major label.
So for more evidence I suggest you contact Eric Garland at BigChampagne, which collects data on p2p trends and compiles lists of what is being shared.
Jon used to post these lists here, but stopped and I don’t know why. I recently read that some people dispute BC’s lists for claiming they show “most downloaded” files, when actually they only show “most shared”. I don’t know if that’s true, or if this dispute is the reason Jon stopped posting their lists.
But I do know that the major record labels and film/tv studios use BC data. They’ve (BC, I believe) claimed they offer a service akin to Nielsen ratings. I don’t know if that’s an appropriate analogy, but I think the data can help in getting more of the evidence you want.
October 12th, 2009 at 9:54 am
Another thought:
I assume the format will be that somebody posts an observation, suggestion, opinion, etc and everybody else comments on it – ie most of the action will be in the comments. If we use a traditional blog format, this could make discussions hard to follow if they run to hundreds of comments. I don’t know if there’s a way of doing threaded comments in WordPress, or whether we would have to use a different technology, but do people think it would be a good idea to do it this way, so that as a commenter I am able to reply very clearly to a specific comment rather than just add my bit to the general discussion?
October 12th, 2009 at 10:03 am
@catflap
Billy has effectively said that he doesn’t personally agree with the bandwidth squeezing proposal, but he put his name to it in order to hold the coalition of musicians together, which he considered a more important goal. I don’t agree with the position either, but it’s just that – a position. It can and doubtless will change as the debate continues. But I do agree that keeping musicians unified, and setting their own agenda outside of that pushed by labels, is a very worthwhile goal, and is what has enabled this dialogue to begin.
Those of us on the fan “side” ought to be ready to shift our positions as well, or what’s the point?
October 12th, 2009 at 10:09 am
@ catflap:
“Jon used to post these lists here, but stopped and I don’t know why.”
I stopped running the lists for one reason only: BC stopped producing them. But I’m still in touch with Eric and we’re hoping to re-start new lists sometime in the fairly near future.
Cheers!
October 12th, 2009 at 10:12 am
peer, I know he said he doesn’t agree with it, but I said I don’t agree with his reasoning for voting for it and that i thought a No vote – or even abstaining, if permitted – would have been a better choice (a truer, more honest vote) in sending a message.
October 12th, 2009 at 10:57 am
Billy, I’ve just reread your above reasoning again – about 10x so far.
Although the FAC isn’t (I believe) a bonafide “worker’s union”, I understand your reasoning – to keep from being dismissed as a turncoat and hopefully continue to try and change the opinions of FAC members with facts.
But although the “masters” didn’t get what they want from you, aren’t they still pushing to get it from the government? What real difference does it matter TO THEM if you give them what they want? They can/will always get/try to get more patsies to spout their lies and inconsistencies. And in the end, won’t they get what they want anyway, with or without the FAC’s endorsement? They always seem to be able to pay off the right politicians.
Also, since you’re in the USA at the moment, and soon will be in Canada on tour, what are you doing/will be doing to get US and Canadian artists on board and/or try to form a chapter of FAC over there?
October 12th, 2009 at 11:15 am
@catflap,
We covered the crap out of that very subject in a different thread.
I put it to bed for my self because it was spiralling.
Refer to this thread …
http://www.p2pnet.net/story/29431
please, rather than rehash the whole thing here.
Also earlier in the thread suggested …
” Gee, it looks like someone’s really REALLY jonesing to be an admin or a mod. ”
My answer to that comes from this from Steelwolf ..
” Moderation is not about limiting that but about keeping it in its place – it’s all too easy for people (myself included) to let their arguments spiral out of control. A good moderator stops that when it happens and creates an environment where people think before they hit “submit.” ”
I clearly do not have the proper mindset for moderating, so, no I would not be an
appropriate choice, I know that, and so does Jon.
October 12th, 2009 at 11:20 am
i’m not talking about mods or whatever. that has nothing to do with my questions here. wtf? are you implying i wrote that? take a walk, buddy. put to bed whatever you want for yourself. i’m asking questions here that are being replied to by the people i’m asking them of. let them tell me to look for the answers if they don’t want to reply.
October 12th, 2009 at 11:24 am
” i’m not talking about mods or whatever. that has nothing to do with my questions here. wtf? are you implying i wrote that? ”
*sigh*
No, not at all.
I just made the mistake of trying to respond to two different posters in one post.
The only thing directed at you was the link to the other BB thread.
That’s all. BB answered all those exact same questions. All I tried to
do was avoid running the same circle with someone else in the same thread.
the other statement was directed at a completely different poster, it just
took me a while to get to answering it.
Slapping me wan’t welly necessary, though I could have been more clear.
October 12th, 2009 at 12:04 pm
catflap,
“But although the “masters” didn’t get what they want from you, aren’t they still pushing to get it from the government? ”
They are. However, when they approached the govt, they were told that this is a very contentious issue and would cause problems for the Labour gvt, who only have 60 legislative days to got before the election next year. Don’t worry, said the industry, we will wheel out our big celebrities to support our demands. Trust us, artists will be 100% behind this move.
Er…think again. The industry are very pissed of with us because we have embarrassed them in front of the govt. That and the fact that their spokesperson Lily Allen has been shot down in flames by you guys.
Truth is, FAC have been a fly in the ointment of the industry’s plan, making links with consumer groups and supportive MPs. It’s the kind of thing that will make Henry spit with rage at the iniquity of it all, but Annie Lennox will get more coverage than the minister for communications in this debate, which is why the govt will quietly drop it……for now. Soft power they call it.
Next year, if the Tories get in as everyone suspects, we’ll have a new fight on our hands.
The stuff you reference at 9.53am, Eric Garland’s research – this is all new to me. That sort of hard data will be invaluable in informing the artist community.
Don’t expect you to support the FAC’s actions in voting for sanctions, but I can assure you that the FAC is dedicated to continuing to challenge the bullshit propagated by the record industry about the role of p2p.
October 12th, 2009 at 2:03 pm
Hi all:
Music in the 21st century: framing the debate — from Billy and I
http://www.p2pnet.net/story/29745
Cheers!
October 12th, 2009 at 5:51 pm
I’m looking forward to the new forum, but really hope the moderation is not as heavy handed as Dreddsnik would like it to be. Sam I Am IS a shill, and when he makes one of his smarmy posts, I would like to be able to call him one without being stepped on by a moderator. While guys like Billy Bragg and Crosbie Fitch seem at least willing to listen, the RIAA hardcore types are not and deserve to be ridiculed by Henry and I when they post.
October 12th, 2009 at 6:00 pm
Once again. Henry in quotes and my responses interspersed.
“1. Okay, FIVE percent of albums are profitable — according to the label executives themselves.”
The number isn’t nearly as important as your willingness to buy into it. Why should we believe any unsubstantiated number generated by the record industry regarding how and where they make money? I don’t understand your willingness to slag everyone who you believe speaks from the industry catechism and then turn around and quote someone who quotes an unnamed and unverified industry source when it suits you. It is in the industry’s interest to make their job look as tough as possible, and the five percent figure is just an example of that. In blunt point of fact, we do NOT know how many releases are profitable in the short term, or, more importantly, in the long term. We do NOT know with any certainty how the value of the label is increased by possession of the copyrights on recordings. We do NOT know how the profitability of individual recordings affects the bottom line. You made the original reference to failure rate to support your contention that the major label business model has “ALWAYS” been a failure, when, to be concise, the success or failure of individual releases has nothing to do with the success or failure of the model.
We’re going to have to raise our game in this discussion, Henry. If you’re going to tell me that only one in twenty releases is profitable, you are going to have to do two things – prove those numbers AND explain what the rate of profitable releases has to do with the subject at hand. At this point, it appears that you are simply trying to paint the record industry as a big evil machine without figuring out what it is that makes it evil, or considering ways to counteract those aspects. That’s not going to get us anywhere.
Here’s what we DO know for certain about record industry economics –
On the basis of royalty account books, many recordings do not make back their initial investment from the initial release. This is as much the result of sharp royalty bookkeeping practices as it is actual sales, and royalty calculations only deal with part of a label’s revenue streams. There’s a reason why all those independent labels were gobbled up by the majors, and why almost all the majors were gobbled up themselves by hardware manufacturers and water utilities; they MAKE money, they don’t lose money. Certainly, there’s an element of wildcatting to it; you can drill a lot of dry holes before you hit a gusher. The fundamental, and very important difference, however, is that all those record company attempts that don’t hit paydirt immediately continue to be valuable in terms of adding to the catalog, even if you don’t strike oil immediately. It is purely anecdotal, but consider what happened to the value of the copyrights on Nick Drake’s recordings after that VW commercial used “Pink Moon.” What looked like a dry hole for thirty years began to produce rivers of cash. Try to pry some old masters from a major label’s vaults, (even unreleased masters from a band that was dropped 40 years ago without a single release, like I have. The fact that you think the masters might be valuable is justification for them keeping them from you until they figure out what that value is.
“As to the supposedly ’self-contradictory” aspect of why they’d lobby for copyright term extensions:
Two words: “Beatles Remixes”. “
Actually, I was referring to you as self-contradictory in arguing that the major label business model was a failure and that the major labels sought copyright extension as a means to preserve the model. My apologies for confusing you.
“2. As to the other thing? You “become” the public face of a cause when you lobby for that cause. That’s why Sarkoszy appears hypocritical when he rams the 3-strikes thing down French voters’ throats, and then gets caught out “pirating” media.”
You have yet to explain how attacking someone for having an opinion actually addresses the subject of the opinion. Calling Sarkozy a hypocrite doesn’t tell me what’s wrong with the three-strikes law, or why it’s wrong. All it tells me is that you disagree with him, and that you are willing to substitute a judgment on his personal shortcomings for a discussion of the substance of his actions. You say that Sarkozy and Allen are bad people. I get that. You don’t tell me why what they have said and done makes them bad people. I don’t understand that. If you think that you are somehow intimidating those people, or that they will hold their tongue so that you don’t excoriate them in the future, you’re giving yourself far too much credit in controlling the discussion.
You seem content to consign “sinners” (deemed such for their failure to embrace your opinion as the truth) to everlasting Hell simply for espousing an opinion you find offensive. I come from a different philosophical direction than you; one where it is possible to “hate the sin but love the sinner.” You’re a Crusader on the way to the conquer the Holy Land by vanquishing the infidels. I’m a missionary carrying the Gospel to unbelievers. The Crusaders discovered, to their lasting dismay, you really can’t kill all the nonbelievers, especially if you have to fight on their turf. (A big problem the Crusaders discovered was that when you killed an infidel, there seemed always to be another to take his place. So it is with major label executives. They spawn like crazy.) The missionaries discovered that many of those “heathens” had belief systems as complex and sophisticated as their own. Faced with the prospect of giving up, they learned to use that information to their advantage. The calendar of Christian holidays shows that those early missionaries were willing to adapt when they could and co-opt when they couldn’t adapt. I think it’s a lesson worth keeping in mind.
“It’s also why voting for a watered-down version of 3-strikes doesn’t make Billy Bragg — or the FAC, for that matter — look very “p2p-friendly”, his debate here notwithstanding.”
You’re right, it didn’t make him “look very p2p friendly.” I think you have to stop dealing with “looks” and start dealing with reality, when there are more than one potential reason for his actions. His vote is not necessarily, as you presume, evidence that he is steadfastly anti-p2p. His vote, and the others who voted with him, may simply be the result of a lack of accurate information, but that doesn’t make him any more worthy of personal scorn than you were in being inaccurate about the supposed “failure rate” of the record business. You’ve got to allow others as much slack as you take for yourself.
“No, but Sonny Bono *did* throw some very public support behind the label’s efforts to get copyright extension. Was he “manipulated” by the labels? Did he do it under “duress?” Or was it simply celebrity narcissism and the ego-stroking of his fans?”
This is another situation that really doesn’t lend itself to limited option thinking. The actual answer is “none of the above.” Sonny Bono supported copyright extension because he believed it was in the best interest of recording artists to preserve the means that had always provided compensation to them. Rightly or wrongly, strictly from a philosophical basis, he believed he had both a right and an obligation to leave the ability to earn money from recordings to his heirs. He said that they would enjoy the fruits of his other investments, why not his recordings, too? That’s what he told me directly, and I have no reason to doubt he was being honest in telling me that. (I was in DC meeting with the association of IP lawyers that was driving the actual drafting of the legislation to see if I could influence, on behalf of my own client, proposed language involving registration of derivative works. I wasn’t successful, but I had a nice lunch with Sonny. I think he lacked a lot of information to counter that view, and I never got the chance to carry on the conversation after I learned a lot more. Remember this all took place in 1994-1995, when p2p was not on anyone’s radar and no one believed that technology would trump the law. No one could foresee that copyright was going to become the main weapon in the fight against downloading, despite its severe limitations in such a function. As far as his contribution to the bill, you really have to remember that the “Bono” bill was only named for him after he died. He was one of a dozen or more sponsors of the original House version of the bill. I seriously doubt anyone actually voted for the bill after he died because “Sonny would have wanted it that way.”
It wasn’t just the record labels that were looking for copyright extension, either. So were the music publishers, and the book and magazine industry. It made perfect political and economic sense for them to seek to extend the means by which they made money. Was it “right?” That’s a different question. Could it have been prevented? That’s still another question. Both are moot at this point.
“And I gotta ask, Fred: how exactly is anybody going to “dialog” with anti-p2p celebrities WITHOUT getting into the “minutae of copyright law” (or at least, some historical background). Let’s assume Billy’s right, and they back the labels because what the labels tell them is “all the have to go on”. How exactly do you even BEGIN to address that, without at least TOUCHING on topics like copyright, fair-use, the public domain, etc.?”
Here’s how you do that:
1. By setting forth what we know about copyright: it is a legal fiction intended to protect the rights of creators in their works by giving them control over distribution. It is not a God-given right and it is not the natural order of things.
2. By acknowledging that no one can control distribution of digital content through the Internet without infringing on the fundamental human rights of everyone who accesses the Internet for whatever reason.
3. By getting everyone in the conversation to agree that the property rights granted under copyright must be subservient to the greater rights of free speech and free access to information, and that restricting access to information, by “throttling” or any other means, is a violation of those fundamental human rights.
4. Copyrights used to work well. They don’t work well now. The main function copyrights now provide in regard to digital distribution of creative works is to give copyright holders a blunt instrument to use against someone unlucky enough to be caught engaged in the unauthorized distribution of the copyrighted work.
What we need, in essence, is a compensation scheme for creators that does not involve any attempt to control distribution. We might learn from the history of copyright, but we are not bound by it. If we disengage the concept of distribution from the concept of compensation, all other options are open, and that’s how you avoid debating the fine points of fair use and the rest. If you need to look at it in terms of copyright, consider it a re-definition of “public domain” to reflect the reality of what the public now has unfettered access to, but I think that using old terminology carries unnecessary baggage. If we come up with a workable compensation scheme, we can name the components whatever we like. Maybe you can do all this by revamping the copyright scheme, but I think that will be an effort from the ground up, anyway, so why not start fresh?
“Look at how skeptical people were a few days ago, when Bragg started posting here. Numerous instances of “Bragg (if that’s really your name)” type skepticism. How exactly do any of you guys intend to protect against that?”
The main way will be to focus on what they say rather than who says it. If it has value, it has value regardless of the source. You should work to get by the personalities involved. It would have been unfortunate if “Billy Bragg” turned out to be an impostor, but all that would have been wasted would have been a couple days and a couple hopes and dreams dashed for the moment.
“And Yes, Fred, I do get what you’re saying about fighting the labels, not the artists.
But what about with a case where the labels give the artists what they “need” in exchange for becoming the labels’ poster-children?”
No change in direction. You deal with what they say rather than attack them personally. Frankly, calling people “whores” is only going to give them, and others who see that behavior, an easy excuse to dismiss everything else you say. You fight disinformation with information, not with invective. Despite what you appear to think, most artists, like most people in general, are capable of figuring things out for themselves when they have the relevant information. Calling them whores isn’t the way to open the discussion.
“For instance (using my Sonny Bono example from earlier), assuming it was an issue of “artistic control” for him. The labels’ can exploit that easily by making the artist nervous about how shorter copyright terms/legalized noncommercial file-sharing etc. deprives them of “control”, so that their music might be used in a way they don’t like.”
Loss of “artistic control” is a legitimate concern, despite what you may think. p2p proponents are going to have to address it and explain to artists what is possible and what is not in the new environment. If control is the pivotal issue, the new ground rules that exist today say you can maintain absolute control only by not releasing anything to the public, and that’s about it. The labels don’t need scare tactics in this regard. The fears of loss of “artistic control” are legitimate. The function of the upcoming discussions will be to see if there is room in the new system to permit “artistic control.”
“Billy mentioned this in the other thread, in a response to Crosbie about how copyright was important to him because without it, how would he keep his music from being used by a right-wing political party. (Paraphrasing, but Crosbie and Billy will know exactly what I’m referencing.)”
The issue of moral rights is not inevitably welded to copyright. That’s also a recent human invention that can be reversed by the same process by which the linkage was created. I think Billy’s concerns about political use of his songs can be addressed by recognizing moral rights separate and apart from property interest. Other creators have them, there’s no reason why it can’t be extended to songwriters and performers. Frankly, the few times I have been involved in situations like this, the reason why a candidate has stopped using a particular song in a campaign has more to do with avoiding the public embarrassment of having the songwriter or performer object than it has with avoiding copyright infringement charges. Here’s one example (where my name gets misspelled, much to my mother’s consternation):
http://minnesota.publicradio.org/collections/special/columns/polinaut/archive/2006/08/mngop_takes_dow.shtml
From your next post:
“Other music genres (Bluegrass, Jazz, Punk, etc.) have always existed. Hell, there was even a gay specialty label (”Camp Records”) that sold it’s stuff from small ads at the back of beefcake magazines):”
You appear to be confusing genres with business models. Most of those smaller labels (except those owned by the artist himself or herself) compensated artists via royalties, so the business model is essentially the same as the majors’.
“I *realize* p2p — and other aspects of digital media distribution — have drastically lowered the “barriers to entry” and suchlike. That “growing middle-class of artists” you’re talking about is a wonderful thing. But it also that expanding pallete of potential business-models which makes the Major Labels’ perpetual screw-job MUCH more difficult.”
Which is a good thing. Every artist will have a greater choice, including the choice of affiliating with a major label, if the label want them.
“Now you can have a potentially global audience WITHOUT “signing”, which is in itself a fairly substantive type of leverage against the labels.”
That is also a good thing.
“Hence their crusade to punish p2p ‘piracy’, demonize file-sharing, link it to terrorism, get government to help them sue regular people into destitution, etc. etc.
And that’s why leaving Billy, or LIly, or Lars or anybody else signed to those labels (and benefiting from the prestige that STILL obtains to such status), is a bad move, especially when they help their corporate bosses to do bad things like 3-strikes.”
I think you left a word out of that last paragraph, because I don’t see how “leaving Billy” means anything here.
From your next post:
“Which they keep lobbying to have extended (retroactively) every few years.
What is it? Fifteen times in the last thirty years?”
“Now Fred: there *has* to be a reason for them to keep doing that. Somebody’s obviously getting some advantage out of the deal. Maybe it’s the continued ability to license sampling, even from relatively obscure albums that didn’t break gold or anything?”
Of course they’re benefiting from extension of copyright, but not in the way they envisioned when the Bono Act was passed. Copyright is now essentially a weapon rather than a shield. They aren’t using copyright to generate revenue, they’re using copyright to defend the perceived present value of the holdings from what they perceive as a devaluation by file sharing. It’s a pure defensive play, but it is what they’ve got to deal with, so they use it as best they can.
In short, they continue to prop up the corpse of copyright because the corpse is still useful within the current legal context. As often happens, technology has transformed the economic landscape to the point where the laws lag behind. When gaps like this exist, the power of law is discredited. There is a constant need to reconcile law with reality, and we see that clearest now in regard to copyright and p2p. The industry clearly lacks the initiative or the originality to seek truly new business models. The impetus will have to originate elsewhere.
“(You wanted links, I’ll be the first one to oblige.)”
I wasn’t the one who asked for links, and I’m old school enough to believe that Wikipedia is the last place I look for definitive answers about anything.
“So which is it, Fred: Can “they” (the labels/their cronies in various governments/signed artists supportive of their actions for whatever reason) “stop” filesharing — or file-sharers — or can’t they?”
They can’t. My reference to “throttling” working was meant as a possible partial deterrent, not as a panacea. Frankly, we don’t know if throttling will work at all, or very well. From a non-tech’s standpoint, it appears to me that, at worst, it will reinvigorate darknets and even sneakernets, so I am doubtful about the utility of a throttle, but that’s just my opinion. Maybe a proponent can step forward and explain how it is supposed to work and why they think it will. And, as noted earlier, there has to be a balancing act between the commercial interests served by throttling and the basic fundamental rights to unfettered access to information. Maybe the Chinese come down on the side of throttling, but I don’t see anyone pretending to be a champion of human rights joining them on this one.
“the corporate “entertainment industry” — “major” labels, film studios, etc. — have been reporting record profits, despite all the hysteria they’re trying to drum up about p2p ‘piracy’. Their doing FINE. They’ve been doing fine since Napster.”
This is simply untrue. They haven’t been reporting record profits. For example, according to Fortune magazine, Warner Music Group has reported losses in four of the last five years, with the one good year being the result of one-time asset sales. EMI has been hemorrhaging money for a decade or more without a break. Universal Music Group’s overall numbers have been propped up by acquisitions of music publishing outfits like BMG Music, but both the revenue and profit from the sale of recorded music has been flat at best. In the 4th quarter of 2008, Sony reported a 45% decrease in profits and a 22% decrease in sales revenue on recorded music. They’re not doing FINE. The decline isn’t because of Napster, either. It is because of a busted model that expected business as usual after all the evidence of a sea-change was there. The market has largely abandoned CDs for single tracks. Digital downloads (legal ones) have replaced physical sales. Massive distribution networks fail when there’s nothing to keep the pipelines full. Recorded music not only has to face p2p, but an incredibly expanded spectrum of entertainment choices, and they have been slow to react in a positive manner. Movie studios are only a half-step behind. It has been years since the business showed a net profit on box office sales. The once-lucrative DVD back end has cratered in the last eighteen months, and only TV licensing keeps everything afloat. The prospect of broader on-demand viewing and the availability of free (ad-driven or unauthorized) Internet access is going to kill that soon. The evidence is clear, time is running out on labels and studios who build business models based on scarcity of product. Your assertion of “record profits” is simply not supported by the facts and runs counter to reality. I realize adding rapacious greed to their image helps demonize them, but the fact remains that they are truly the last of the dinosaurs in an environment that has grown incredibly inhospitable to dinosaurs. Your statement is simply incorrect. You’ll have to tell me whether or not the error makes you a “whore.” You’re the expert on that stuff, not me.
The debate is going to need hard facts and well reasoned arguments if it is going to challenge current perceptions. It is my concern that, in the discussions to be held, your focus on who said what rather than what they said is going to severely undercut the impact of the substantive issues you raise. You are going to marginalize yourself. I cannot speak for others who will get involved at that level, but I assure you that my own response will be not to respond to you if you get into that crap. That leaves it up to you whether or not you’ll be part of the process.
And if you place yourself on the outside, that will be too bad. Your position and mine is really not that far apart. I’m the one who has pointed out that any organization that pretends to represent the interests of record labels AND artists is never more than an association of sharks and baitfish. When it comes time to seek the help of the government for the labels, you will always see performers asking for help, because no one is going to seriously pay attention to Edgar Bronfman testifying he needs more money, especially when he can tell the Senators privately. While the immediate goal of the new conversation is to show artists directly that p2p is not the enemy, in the longer run, I hope it weakens the psychological fetters that exist now between labels and artists (often through management companies that tend to reflexively see things from the label side on issues like this) and makes them willing participants in campaigns that often drive a wedge between them and their fans, and, as a sad byproduct, gives people like you a reason to call them names.
October 12th, 2009 at 7:56 pm
Billy:
“It’s not going to be a very constructive dialogue if we dismiss the views of anybody signed to a record labels and benefiting from the prestige that still obtains to such status. You seem to be on your own private crusade to demonize anyone who wants to make a living in the music industry.”
Please define “music industry’ for us all:
Do you mean “signed” or “unsigned” artists?
Because there’s a really big difference between the two, even if you don’t realize it.
The whole structure of royalties, airplay, licensing fees, and yes, “prestige” from which you benefit are artifacts of what big corporations have been able to do to the mainstream media.
I mean, come on: they can drive something to the top simply by playing it enough times on radio, and hyping it enough.
(Or do you really think “Achy Breaky Heart” was some kind of masterwork?
While *you* may not notice it, the mere fact that you guys CAN become “famous” puts you in a really different ball-park from anybody else, INCLUDING other musicians who aren’t the “beneficiaries” of RIAA member-labels (dubious) benefits.
Case in point: do a google search for a guy named “Rob Crow”. He’s obviously “making a living in the music industry” (he’s been in thirty-some bands and releases vast numbers of albums, at any rate), but he’s not “famous” in the way you — or Lily Allen — are.
So the *first* step (which you won’t take) is to admit the difference between “making a living” via music, and the “celebrity lifestyle” — which involves FAR more than being a multimillionaire. Crosbie Fitch would never be interviewed by The Guardian. (I know I wouldn’t, because I’m not from England.)
I’m out, Y’all
(smirk)
October 12th, 2009 at 8:06 pm
“The industry didn’t get what it wanted from us, which was acquiescence to their demands for disconnection. For the first time, artists spoke and they did not agree with their masters. Now, some people here are not prepared to recognise that small but important difference. Henry conflates everyone signed to a record label as evil, just as the labels conflate p2p with the worse excesses of piracy. It suits their agenda, just as it suits Henry’s.”
They got *exactly* what they wanted, which was “acquiescence to their demands” that the British Government do “something”. You guys *still* ended up conforming to the already-established pattern of “artists” throwing their support behind the labels’ war on p2p/innovation/the public domain, etc.
Trying *really* hard not to sound argumentative here, Billy, but this is what you’ve given us:
1. There *IS* a giant, glaringly obvious difference between supporting sanctions (throttling) and supporting DIFFERENT sanctions (disconnection).
But:
2. There is *no* difference between “making a living” as an unsigned artist, with a lifestyle and financial profile approximating that of the rest of the population and “making a living” as a multi-billionaire interviewed by newspapers, whose fans hang on every word you utter, and who could buy and sell any of us in a heartbeat.
Nobody I’ve ever met has even *seen* 100 thousand dollars. For many major-label celebrities (the ones to whom I was referring with my “narcissism” comments), that’s a summer wardrobe.
Backing out now, lest I seem “argumentative” again
October 12th, 2009 at 8:23 pm
“You appear to be confusing genres with business models. Most of those smaller labels (except those owned by the artist himself or herself) compensated artists via royalties, so the business model is essentially the same as the majors’.”
Umm, no, where you got that from, I have no idea.
Other genres MIGHT have used royalties ane suchlike, but — and here’s the salient point here:
1. They’ve never had the amount of “fame” or “celebrity” that inevitably engulfs even the newest top-40 “one hit wonder”.
2. As a general rule, the labels involved with those genres — and the artists’ performing them — have functioned within budgetary constraints more like the rest of the population. Hell, one good example of this is the fact that at least SOME members of “professional” touring Bluegrass groups took non-music-related jobs outside of the “Festival” season, to pick up the slack.
They’ve never benefited from the hype factor, either. Great example: Bluegrass albums experienced a significant up-tick after the release of “O Brother Where are thou?” and “Cold Mountain”. Hell, I have an album that was put out by the “Stone’s River Ranch Boys”, called “O Brother where art thou” explicitly mentioning the song “man of constant sorrow as heard in the hit motion picture”.
My point was that OUTSIDE of relatively few extremely famous “big names” (who are almost continuously surrounded by a lifestyle and financial setup we can’t even imagine), the vast majority of those involved with “professional music” or suchlike aren’t *as* wedded to the trappings of fame and suchlike.
To claim that I “confuse genres with business models” is to ignore how economics of scale play out.
October 12th, 2009 at 8:24 pm
Hey Henry:
You’re famous too. Thousands of people have read your posts.
Cheers!
October 12th, 2009 at 8:47 pm
“peer, I know he said he doesn’t agree with it, but I said I don’t agree with his reasoning for voting for it and that i thought a No vote – or even abstaining, if permitted – would have been a better choice (a truer, more honest vote) in sending a message.”
The above, is what’s going to make a2f2a irrelevant:
1. Major label artists who are absolutely wedded to the “celebrity lifestyle” (NOT just the money), but the “drivin’ around in a Benz, sippin’ Krystal, ‘please-autograph-my-infant-daughter’ kind of thing, aren’t going to *bother* re-evaluating the business-model that’s paid off for them. They’re just going to continue to be multimillionaires enjoying a life-style of that kind, and, staying extremely attentive when their corporate paymasters (there I go again!) tell them there’s a “threat”, to it.
2. Up-and-comers (those who understand stuff like p2p, and accept that there’s at least a strong probability that the new paradigm will *not* lead to that old-school levels of wealth and fame) simply won’t listen to the big-names when they try to explain why their setup needs to be preserved and protected from p2p ‘pirates’.
3. The p2p community doesn’t divide neatly into “artist’ and “fan” — much as the labels’ would like to paint it. P2p users are NEVER going to stop using p2p, even if the big-name artists make some kind of impassioned appeals about it, if for no other reason than the labels have spent ten years demonizing and alienating p2p users, with folks like Lars Ulrich as their willing mouthpieces.
(Actually, ‘corporate whore” IS too strong a phrase, because it assumes that Lily Allen HAS independent values or integrity to betray, instead of being a willing participant.)
4. The last thing that’s going to doom a2f2a — heartfelt as it might be — is that, in the interests of gentleness and inoffensiveness and all that stuff, the vast majority of discussion will probably end up resmelbing the above convolution of “He said, but I said, but he said” circling.
Nobody’s going to actually stay around for that, and even if they *do*, the labels are never going to admit they’ve been wrong, because the the anti-p2p thing gives them leverage: inroads to government power, a way to keep signed artists scared, and just enough “settlements” trickling in to sweeten the deal.
Just some stuff, etc.
October 12th, 2009 at 8:50 pm
“I wasn’t the one who asked for links, and I’m old school enough to believe that Wikipedia is the last place I look for definitive answers about anything.”
Can a single link — or even a boatload of them — supply “definitive” answers, Fred?
(Add to that, the fact that I could *really* read a fair amount of snarkiness into it, which would just bring us back to the “argumentative” bullshit again, etc.)
And yes, for some reason there WAS a word missing in that one sentence:
It should have read “Leaving Billy off the hook as to the 3-strikes thing is a bad idea.”
I still stand by that, btw.
October 12th, 2009 at 9:03 pm
Monkey:
“I’m looking forward to the new forum, but really hope the moderation is not as heavy handed as Dreddsnik would like it to be. Sam I Am IS a shill, and when he makes one of his smarmy posts, I would like to be able to call him one without being stepped on by a moderator. While guys like Billy Bragg and Crosbie Fitch seem at least willing to listen, the RIAA hardcore types are not and deserve to be ridiculed by Henry and I when they post.”
1. Jon sent me a (somewhat) snarky email (cross-forwared to Sam as well) the gist of which is that he would/will stomp either of us if we start sniping one another again. (Personally, I’m to the point where the sheer mealy-mouthedness of this whole thread makes me want to puke, but that’s just me.)
Billy: You handed them sanctions on a silver platter, even if you don’t think that’s what you did.
And, let’s be honest: Annie Lennox, You, Lily, or any of Y’all (there I go again) are only as “famous” as we — everybody else — ALLOW you to be.
Jon just told me I’m “famous” too, because thousands of people have read my posts.
So where’s my goddamn Porsche, hmm? Exactly my point: the new paradigm probably isn’t going to *allow* the kind of celebrity lifestyles I’ve been talking about — although, if even a million people drop a dollar into your “donate here” thingy, that’s a million bucks with no hassle whatsoever, so maybe it *will*.
You’re trying, Billy — I’ll give you that much.
But seriously, Monkey, don’t make me be the resident “bitch-slapper” here. I know some people see me as “argumentative” or whatever, but I’m actually a nice fella. I’ll try to leave the whole beating-the-stupid-trolls-to-death thing to you folks more.
Maybe A2f2a DOES have a point after all: af2fa for the “genteel” (and extremely circuitous) debate where nothing much gets done, p2pnet for those made of “stronger stuff”.
Like I said, I’ll definitely be watching this. Same amount of skepticism, more amusement, however.
Cheers, everyfolks
October 12th, 2009 at 9:46 pm
“Hey Henry:
You’re famous too.
Thousands of people have read your posts.”
NOT ME. I stopped reading them a couple of days ago.
Why?
Sorry, but I’ve had enough of Henry’s repetitiveness.
And yes, argumentativeness. He wants to make a point. Ok Henry, your point is taken, noted, and filed away until it’s needed.
I didn’t used to think this way. Some of the things he said I used to think were interesting. But it just goes on and on and on and on, repeating the same things, getting the same replies from the same people, each of them thinking the other is going to change their mind because of the eloquence used.
Now I just have to jump past them to get to new things that people are talking about.
Henry, please change the record. When you do, I’ll start reading you again. Until then, I’m sure I won’t be missing out.
October 12th, 2009 at 9:51 pm
Oh and btw Henry…
I’m sure you’re just a regular nice guy and all. I don’t doubt that.
But please. Okay?
October 12th, 2009 at 10:09 pm
I stopped reading this after the 20th post from Henry.
Henry bored the hell out of me with his school-yard/tard rhetoric.
:/
Be prepared in your new blog to give 75% of it to Henry.
October 12th, 2009 at 11:38 pm
Henry, you said:
“The above, is what’s going to make a2f2a irrelevant”
So then, I hope to not see you there as I’m sure you believe YOU are indeed relevant.