“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.

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.

I’m sure you’re just a regular nice guy and all. I don’t doubt that.

But please. Okay?

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.

“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

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.

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.

You’re famous too. Thousands of people have read your posts.

Cheers!

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.

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

“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)

“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.

Music in the 21st century: framing the debate — from Billy and I

http://www.p2pnet.net/story/29745

Cheers!

“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.

*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.

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.

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?