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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.)

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

“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.

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.

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