Music in the 21st century: framing the debate
p2pnet news view | P2P | Music:- The debate around P2P is clouded by misconception and propaganda. Artists believe what they hear from managers and label bosses about the ‘menace’ of file-sharing.
There can be only be one winner in this situation – the major record labels.
By telling their contracted artists they’re the victims of the evil downloaders, the labels have been able to blur the line between online sharing, and criminal counterfeiting, duplicating and illicit underground sales.
At the same time, they’re using file sharing as an excuse to demand that governments everywhere give them blanket laws that threaten everyone’s individual liberty, artists and fans alike, and which will be paid for not by the labels, who initiated them for purely business purposes, but by customers and taxpayers.
The labels dominate the debate because they have bottomless pockets, legions of lawyers, paid lobbyists and PR machines at their disposal. Fans who share files have had no voice in this discussion. That must change.
To overcome record industry domination, artists need to talk to the P2P communities, and and vice versa.
Our artist-to-fan-to-artist forum aims to facilitate the debate, hammering out a clear definition of:
- What the p2p communities do, and how their behaviour is beneficial, or harmful, to the artist community; and,
- What artists can do to overcome the artificial barriers set up over the past 100 years to keep us part.
The pro and cons of copyright must be discussed. Is it fit for use in this digital age? What are its limits? Should it exist at all?
We need to thrash out and agree a model for fair use that enables us to be creative without fearing repercussions from record industry lawyers
Artists rightfully expect to be paid for their work, no question. So what’s the best, and most efficient, way to make this happen?
What can musicians and music lovers do together to help those ordinary music fans who are being threatened by the recording industry?
How can artists and fans help emerging independent businesses and innovators create platforms for the efficient and equitable sales, marketing and distribution of digital music online?
Print and electronic mainstream media outlets, online and off, have been guilty of acting as vehicles for disinformation and outright lies, often because the traditional media have no other sources of information. What can we do to help them get it right?
Our goals at a2f2a will be to:
- Help each community better understand the other;
- Find a practical and workable system which offers artists fair remuneration in exchange for access to material by fans; and
- Set the agenda for discussions about the role P2P can play within the emergent digital record industry.
Together, we can do it – artist to fan to artist.
Billy Bragg, artist | Jon Newton, fan
[PS - the logo at the top is just a temp. Ideas appreciated. 
- Thanks, B&J ]
- Lily Allen disses P2P file sharing
- Lily Allen piracy saga update
- Lily Allen, copyright pirate
- Billy Bragg solves the file sharing problem
- Yeh, Billy Bragg, but what about the indies?
- Billy Bragg to p2pnet …
- We are the walrus. Or, thank you Lily Allen
- ‘Just some stuff to think about, Billy’
- Walruses and sock puppets
- Dear music lovers …
- Dear Dick Huey …
- Artists to Fans to Artists: a2f2a
- The last of the dinosaurs
- Labour MP Tom Watson attacks 3 Strikes plan
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 12th, 2009 at 2:14 pm
I think, as a baseline, some understanding of the how and why of a filesharers attitude about what they do needs to be set forth. While i cannot (and will not) attempt to speak for everyone out their, I can tell Billy and anyone else in the industry who is reading here, how my attitudes were formed!
I grew up in the rural midwest of the US, when radio was about it unless you could afford an album. When cassette tapes came along everybody who could pull in a good enough signal began recording the music we loved, so we could listen when and where we wanted to. Nobody said anything about it being piracy, theft or anything of the sort, we went along blind to any legality issues there might have been at the time. Tape trading and sharing were “normal” activity for my entire generation.
Of course, in my personal case, when I really liked an artist (and could afford the price) I bought the music in its current format. I can only assume that other people had done the same as we were constantly borrowing each others records and tapes. (early p2p) While the formats of the media have changed over the years, most of the attitudes about music have not. I understand NOW about the laws providing copywrite to the owner of those writes, and understand that you (the artist) dont own the writes to your creations.
When its all said and done (again speaking only for myself) when I can afford to buy music I do. I would much rather be sure that you (artists) are recieving that money, than have it go to the industry that has made a killing by ripping you off. And in the meantime when I find music I like i offer to share it with my peers so they can enjoy it also.
While I do see that the artists are stuck in the middle of this “war” between the fans and the labels, I dont see where you can change a music lovers ingrained habits, or attitudes developed over a long lifetime! I am 50 years old in a few short weeks, I have taught my children the love of music, and the joy of sharing it with friends. Thats not going to change! I dont want to rip you off, but I damn sure dont want to pay the labels that ARE ripping you off! So, untill somebody somewhere can fix the mess that the labels have made, or creates a direct pipeline that I can use to pay YOU for the work you have done, we are at an impass!
Thanks for listening to an old dog barking in the wind! I look forward to the new website where we can get together and try to find some answers!
Alan
October 12th, 2009 at 4:08 pm
“PS – the logo at the top is just a temp.”
I’d put a pic of children in shackles with an RIAA over-lord towing them. chanting thou shalt not download. An English lawyer (with the white wig) reading from a scroll saying anyone who does over 30-gigs of B/W is a criminal.
In the background, a bankruptcy sign on a home with people being evicted.
That about sums it up for North America and the UK.
Now put that as a pic.
October 12th, 2009 at 6:02 pm
Artists, who is ripping you off?
One thing I pointed out before, but bears repeating is this; from everything I’ve read the RIAA hasn’t given a PENNY of the settlement money to any of the artist who’s names they are using in their filesharer lawsuits. So what the artist has is his name rubbed in shit and yet not collecting a penny. Why would any artist support this; even if they thought the lawsuits were a good idea they should at least be demanding the RIAA pay them a % of that money. The RIAA is claiming it as a “lost sale”, well if the song sold then wouldn’t the RIAA have to pay the artist a percentage? How come they get away with not paying artists a percentage of the settlement money? Personally I think artists should demand they STOP suing their fans. Even when the RIAA ignores them, at least they have made it clear they are not a party to the lawsuit process.
October 13th, 2009 at 2:46 am
Artists should not defend a corporation (RIAA) that doesn’t stand up for them, much less does not even pay them for their work. How long until they realize this? They need to stop being a pawn and start directing their eyes to the true source of the problem.
October 13th, 2009 at 3:54 pm
The RIAA is a “not for profit” organisation and pays little if any tax, it is not and never has been a corporation.
October 13th, 2009 at 4:22 pm
not for profit = Biggest fucking scam ever
October 13th, 2009 at 10:06 pm
” The RIAA is a “not for profit” organisation and pays little if any tax, it is not and never has been a corporation.
oh that makes it ok then. sorry carry on
October 13th, 2009 at 10:17 pm
Would it be more “okay” if they DID pay tax?
October 14th, 2009 at 2:31 am
No one mentioned that these massive corporations who make billions of dollars only end up paying 1 or 2 percent of their income on taxes,what makes them so special?
October 14th, 2009 at 8:30 am
Promising signs to further the discussion…
http://edmi.parliament.uk/EDMi/EDMDetails.aspx?EDMID=39226&SESSION=899
http://torrentfreak.com/labour-mp-calls-disconnecting-file-sharers-futile-091014/
Labour MP: Disconnecting File-Sharers is Futile
Tom Watson – EDM 1997 – ILLICIT FILE SHARING – 12.10.2009
That this House notes with concern the Government’s proposals on file sharing which would allow rights holders to request internet service providers to disconnect for a period of time, or throttle, the internet connection of people who may be accused of copyright infringement via peer to peer networks; believes that disconnecting alleged offenders will be futile given that it is relatively easy for determined file-sharers to mask their identity or their activity to avoid detection; acknowledges that illicit file-sharing only costs rights-holders money when people download infringing content in preference to buying it; further notes that identifying offenders using the Internet Protocol address of a specific machine may punish those who share a web connection; and calls on the Government to ensure that any citizen accused of illicit file-sharing is given the right to legal redress in a court of law before sanctions are imposed.
At the time of writing this EDM tabled by Tom Watson has the support of 18 other MPs, and not solely from his own Labour Party either. Support is coming in from across the political spectrum, from Labour through to their opposition in the Conservative Party Liberal Democrats, Social Democratic and Labour Party and Plaid Cymru.
On another note…
Hey, Billy…
Was this an admission that the whole Lily Allen thing was a setup that backfired?
“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.”
From… http://www.p2pnet.net/story/29550#comments
October 14th, 2009 at 9:03 am
RW,
How do you mean admission? Were we ever under any illusion that it was anything else??
Tom Watson is a good guy who I am in regualr contact with. This EDM is the next step in building opposition to sanctions in the legislature. If it can get enough signatures, we can then use it to convince skeptical artists that there is no technical solution.
October 14th, 2009 at 9:26 am
We here, were not, but as this propelled through the industry mouthpieces and their outlets, they of course tried to paint it otherwise.
“Oh, she couldn’t go on with her blog because of the abuse”
I spent hours reading through that blog of hers the night before the morning it was deleted and the only real abuse that was there was reasoning why she was wrong.
October 14th, 2009 at 9:40 am
Generally, in the US, in order to be granted nonprofit status, you have to be a corporation. So, it is likely that the RIAA is a corporation, unless of course they decided they didn’t want to be one, in which case they probably paid their pet politicos (are there any that aren’t the pets of the RIAA and friends?) for an exception to be made just for them.
October 14th, 2009 at 9:45 am
Remember, the RIAA’s biggest fan, Joe Biden, is first in line for the presidency. >_<
October 14th, 2009 at 9:52 am
The RIAA is a trade group, lobbying group, representative to Sony, EMI, Warner Bros. and Universal who are the corporations. They are under the same umbrella, but not exactly the same.
October 14th, 2009 at 10:04 am
@ “The RIAA is a trade group, lobbying group, representative …”
This comes up every now and then, I posted in January – http://www.p2pnet.net/story/18247
# Arista is a wholly owned subsidiary of Sony BMG
# Atlantic is owned by the Warner Music Group
# BMG is the German half of the Sony BMG partnership
# Capitol is owned by EMI
# Elektra is owned by the Warner Music Group
# Interscope is owned by Vivendi’s Universal Music Group
# Lava is owned by owned by Warner Music Group
# Loud is owned by UMG
# Priority Records is owned by EMI
# Maverick is owned by the Warner Music Group
# Motown Priority is owned by Vivendi’s Universal Music Group
# SONY is the Japanese half of the Sony BMG partnership
# UMG is Vivendi’s Universal Music Group
# Virgin Music is owned by EMI
# Warner Music Group is Warner Music
etc etc
Cheers
October 14th, 2009 at 12:01 pm
“acknowledges that illicit file-sharing only costs rights-holders money when people download infringing content in preference to buying it”
Well, it’s about time SOMEBODY acknowledged that. Bravo. The cartel seems to just take it for granted for every download is a sale lost.
October 14th, 2009 at 2:20 pm
@Radial:
I think we need to be a little more careful with our optimism when we think politicians are “getting it”.
As we all know, they’re great at putting words together that say much less than they first appear to.
Case in point, if you look at that statement…
“…acknowledges that illicit file-sharing only costs rights-holders money when people download infringing content in preference to buying it.”
…It basically says that they lose money when people download infringing content.
I don’t call that a complete acknowledgement of the truth.
It leaves out the part about those who download would not necessarily have bought the content, and leaves the backdoor open for denying having made any acknowledgement to that.
October 14th, 2009 at 9:44 pm
“It leaves out the part about those who download would not necessarily have bought the content.”
Actually, that was exactly what the quote addressed….reposted below, note the emphasis:
“acknowledges that illicit file-sharing ONLY costs rights-holders money when people download infringing content in PREFERENCE to buying it.”
I don’t think anyone would dispute that if someone downloads music that they originally intended to buy, that’s a lost sale. That’s downright obvious. What the cartels have missed is the point that everyone who downloads is not downloading in preference to buying it….in fact, study after study has shown that most p2p-ers are MORE likely to purchase.
That being said, however, I’m hardly “optimistic” about politicians “getting it.” I just think that this one made an atypically bold statement, and one that probably none of them would have had the cannolis to make just five years ago, let alone ten.
I’m not considering a victory, or even a positive sign of things to come. But I’m still glad to hear someone outside of this circle say it.
October 14th, 2009 at 10:52 pm
” “acknowledges that illicit file-sharing ONLY costs rights-holders money when people download infringing content in PREFERENCE to buying it.”
I don’t think anyone would dispute that if someone downloads music that they originally intended to buy, that’s a lost sale. That’s downright obvious. What the cartels have missed is the point that everyone who downloads is not downloading in preference to buying it….in fact, study after study has shown that most p2p-ers are MORE likely to purchase. ”
That’s precisely why it’s a ‘non-statement’.
They ignore every one of those studies, so the only way to make the determination
if the infringer downloaded ‘in preference’ or not is to sue.
Prove their innoncence.
The statement isn’t bold at all. It’s designed to sound real nice and mean nothing.
October 15th, 2009 at 1:01 am
I think Dredd’s seeing what I’m talking about.
By design, the statement is only marginally more definitive than a daily horoscope.
(The writer says absolutely nothing, but the reader gets what he/she wants from the parts he/she wants to see.)
October 15th, 2009 at 3:05 am
I’m not an assiduous reader of p2pnet so I may be wrong, but one thing I have not seen in any posts following the above article or any time I have been on the site is the question of what artists are earning. Everybody knows that until an artist hits the big times they earn sod all, so I’m talking about the heavy weights.
There are a couple of reasons I raise this question.
First, in my performance going days I used to see mainly classical concerts until the day came when I couldn’t really afford to see the kinds of artists I liked. Concert tickets in the range of $70-$100 just wasn’t in my budget. Now I know popular music is in general less expensive but is there anybody out there who thinks that music is being priced out of their budget? And again, I think we all agree that at $1 per download iTunes is highway robbery.
I also remember when Jon wrote about the then upcoming English chanteuse Joss Stone receiving some diamonds for her birthday from her recording label. I thought that was really in bad taste, especially as it was I think about the same time that the recording industry was going, fangs bared, after Patty Santangelo and family.
Nobody is denying that artists, especially those who really achieve worldwide fame, have special talents but are their special talents that much more valuable than those of many other people? Jon has a special talent for finding news and presenting it in an interesting way but his income is in no way commensurate with the amount of time and brainpower he has to expend everyday. Would we value our great artists less if they’re income level was brought down from stratospheric heights?
And perhaps the music world could become more balanced by giving a little less to the big names in order to give something to the worthy struggling artists.
October 15th, 2009 at 10:43 am
” I have been on the site is the question of what artists are earning. ”
If I remember correctly, they can’t discuss it. Part of the contract.
” Now I know popular music is in general less expensive but is there anybody out there who thinks that music is being priced out of their budget? ”
Absolutely.
” I also remember when Jon wrote about the then upcoming English chanteuse Joss Stone receiving some diamonds for her birthday from her recording label. I thought that was really in bad taste, especially as it was I think about the same time that the recording industry was going, fangs bared, ”
I remember that very well.
I direct this to Fred Wilhelms ( I have to be very specific, some people around here keep there claws out ).
How can a ‘broke’ industry continue to do things like this, and be taken at their word by ‘fans’. It’s not a
question about how lawmakers believe it, they believe what they’re paid to believe.
” Nobody is denying that artists, especially those who really achieve worldwide fame, have special talents but are their special talents that much more valuable than those of many other people? ”
This is a worldwide problem.
We reward lavishly those whose gifts are only physical ( athletes ) or superficial ( models ), yet the most
necessary endeavors, the ones that REALLY push us forward ( science, tech, INFORMATION, COMMUNICATION
medical etc ..) are given a mere pittance of attention.
That’s humanity since the dawn of time.
I don’t know why it’s that way, but it is, and it’s just
as wrong and destructive as it always has been.
October 15th, 2009 at 1:25 pm
“Nobody is denying that artists, especially those who really achieve worldwide fame, have special talents but are their special talents that much more valuable than those of many other people?” – Liz
Is any song worth more than the scientists who are developing cures for disease and hunger? Or engineers and architects who design hospitals?
Or nurses who cater to our elderly in Palliaitive Care? Or those who educate our children to grow up in a land of free speech? Or thosed who create communication lines around the world?
Or are we all in this together – to bring home an honest day’s pay for an honest day’s work, no matter how clever we are?
When is a person paid far beyond the value of their work?
When they can skim off the top for decades, helped by having control of law and control of the technology.
Or when you partner up with the above.
Well now we all have the technology and we are working on the law.
Gone are those days. It was all artificial.
Just like the wealth you can appear to have when your credit cards are maxed.
October 15th, 2009 at 3:13 pm
An artist’s contractual compensation is rarely covered by any sort of confidentiality agreement, and the terms are usually well known within the business. The reason why it is rarely a subject for public discussion is a combination of the precept that “it’s none of your damned business” and the fact that it is never easy to explain coherently in 25 words or less.
I’m not going to even try to address the issues of “fairness” of compensation that hive been raised. That’s beyond both my reach and my grasp.
October 16th, 2009 at 8:39 am
“acknowledges that illicit file-sharing only costs rights-holders money when people download infringing content in preference to buying it”
Lets modify this as it would have been said by a music artists on about 1920, when non live performances (records and radio) were becoming mainstream:
“acknowledges that non live performances costs artists when people listen to a non live performance instead of going to where artists work live”.
If that were true, could artists argue for legal protection so as to protect their livelihood, just a RIAA does today to protect the record company profits?
Then why not make all broadcasting and all recordings illegal so that artists really benefit from the law? Then everyone has to go to a concer or a club to listen to artists. That way every artist will prosper as they did in the old days.
Artist, is that what you want, going back to the old days?
Say so and forget about the limited (you get almost nothing in benefits) protection that RIAA seeks for you.
October 19th, 2009 at 7:41 pm
Nice NWO/Illuminati/Masonic-style logo you got going on on the a2f2a website. That’ll surely attract attention. Perhaps there’s room for the Big Brother eye to fit in?