Sam I Am — a troll unmasked
p2pnet view P2P | RIAA:- For many moons one of the most persistent, and sometimes offensive, trolls spamming Big Music junque on p2pnet was Sam I Am, a copyright enthusiast who nonetheless didn’t hesitate to repeatedly infringe the name Sam I Am, a character created by American writer and cartoonist Theodor Seuss Geisel, aka Dr Seuss.
Not that I seriously think the Seuss family, or anyone else, would go after him — although you never know. 
Since he had so much to say, and so often, I asked him number of times to tell us who he was. I even asked him to let me know in confidence because I’d often wondered, as had many others, if he was actually an RIAA shill planted on p2pnet.
He never did come out of the troll closet. But I had Sam I Am’s email address, and clues therein, plus references to his business and travels, were enough for me to identify him with reasonable certainty.
However, I got tired of his games and when I cut him off, I left it at that
He still emails me once in a while, but we’ve seen it all before so his missives get filed under G.
If you’re curious, do a Sam I Am search in the upper left toolbar.
FAC facts?
To digress, I’ve been trying to get a list of the the names of Featured Artist Coalition members, so far without any luck.
The FAC, whose board members are, in order of appearance on their site, Billy Bragg; Kate Nash; Master Shortie; Ed O’Brien (Radiohead); Dave Rowntree (Blur); Howard Jones; Mark Kelly (Marillion); Hal Ritson (The Young Punx); Sandie Shaw; Annie Lennox; Nick Mason (Pink Floyd); Lucy Pullin (The Fire Escapes); Ross Millard (The Futureheads); and, Fran Healy (Travis).
I understand the FAC has more than 1,000 members, but good luck finding out who they are, although I did run a partial list a while back.
Nor am I the only one who’d like an accurate and full line-up.
Long time p2pnet reader Dreddsnik has also been wondering.
What an about-face !
“The inaugural meeting of the U.K.’s Featured Artists’ Coalition (FAC) in London resulted in a unanimous vote among its members against any measures that criminalize file-sharing”, said Billboard in March, 2009, going on >>>
As well as discussing the general aims and logistics of the new body, there was also a unanimous show of hands against the idea of criminalizing file-sharers, according to those present.
There was concern about any legal body taking action against fans who were involved in file-sharing and preventing them getting broadband access to be informed about the activities of their favorite acts.
Then, six months later came another FAC statement, this time declaring >>>
Our meeting … voted overwhelmingly to support a three-strike sanction on those who persistently download illegal files, sanctions to consist of a warning letter, a stronger warning letter and a final sanction of the restriction of the infringer’s bandwidth to a level which would render file-sharing of media files impractical while leaving basic email and web access functional.
Nice one.
‘Consultant at Digital Marketing, IP monetization’
So what’s Sam I Am got to do with all of this?
His real name is Gregory A. Roach and according to his Linked-in page unearthed by Dredd, he’s an “Interior/Lighting designer at GAR Associates” in the Greater New York City area.
He’s also a “Consultant at Digital Marketing, IP monetization”.
And an anonymous comment poster on behalf of the corporate music industry whose spams have appeared on sites other than p2pnet’s.
But more importantly, for the purposes of this item, his Linked in blurb also boasts >>>
UK Digital Initiative, London, England, February 20, 2009
Attendee and participant in the core focus group leading to the formation of the Featured Artists Coalition.
Interesting.
So is he a musician as well?
If not, what was he doing at the “core focus group leading to the formation of the Featured Artists Coalition”, particularly given his solid commitment to the corporate music industry?
Stay tuned.
Jon Newton – p2pnet
..… and identi.ca
First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win ~ Mahatma Gandhi
February, 2010
Use free p2pnet newsfeeds for your site. Subscribe to p2pnet.net | | rss feed: http://p2pnet.net/feed
Net access blocked by government restrictions? Use Psiphon from the Citizen Lab at the University of Toronto. Go here for details.
February 22nd, 2010 at 4:32 pm
Curiouser and curiouser. How deep the rabbit hole goes eh?
May be you should double-check quite how much chance was involved in other encounters with members of FAC?
February 22nd, 2010 at 4:42 pm
Gregory Cook-Roach?
I know it. Just a bunch of parasites and vermin constitute the core of the copyright terrorist organization.
February 22nd, 2010 at 4:44 pm
If this is true, it shows one thing only. Those with their fingers in the pockets of big entertainment will go a long ways towards self-interest protection, even if they don’t want to own up to it or to the reason they are bias.
It could well be on speculation that he is one of those that receive money for involvement to preach the gospel from those on high to the lowly unwashed masses as to how the world should turn, or even if it should, according to the dictates of those running the legal scams of entertainment. In other words, not exactly what you could call an unbiased source because he’s on the payroll to do so.
Now it’s one thing to have a say because it is your belief. It’s quite another to be paid to have that say on a regular basis.
Troll it is.
February 22nd, 2010 at 4:44 pm
Kudos Jon!!,
Great expose of a long time shill. While I always suspected he was an RIAA flunky I never would have guessed that he had anything to do with FAC, as that was always presented as an ARTISTS group, supposedly independent of the labels. I know you cut him off, but it would be interesting to hear his reply to this post, if indeed he has one at all. I’d also LOVE to hear Billy’s response to this.
February 22nd, 2010 at 4:45 pm
Ain’t payback a bitch
February 22nd, 2010 at 5:06 pm
^^ What goes around does indeed come around.
heh
Cheers!
February 22nd, 2010 at 5:54 pm
” Great expose of a long time shill. While I always suspected he was an RIAA flunky I never would have guessed that he had anything to do with FAC, as that was always presented as an ARTISTS group, supposedly independent of the labels. ”
I suspect, and this is only my OPINION, not necessarily shared by the site owners or anyone else, that Sam is a ‘Go To’ guy for the labels
for Music Video productions, and as such has a very sweet deal with the AA’s. If the AA’s fail, then Sam would be forced to drastically
lower his fees in order to get business, since ‘unsupported’ acts would not be able to afford him at his current , ahem .. value.
Right now he doesn’t have to compete, and the labels know just how good it feels to not have to really compete for business.
Seeing him as part of the formation of the FAC makes me think that the FAC was put together by people who ALREADY HAD THEIR
MINDS MADE UP about Peer to Peer and the people who use it, and the FAC is merely a tool of motivated self interest. This would
explain the sudden turnabout on their policy. The fans being ‘mean’ to Lilly Allen was just an excuse to justify changing their view
to what they wanted all along, and current events on A2F2A seem to show more ‘gotcha’ behavior on the part of the FAC. The FAC
are looking for any statements, quotes, or other ‘ammunition’ to show P2Pers as a bunch of thieves, deserving of prosecution, thus
artificially justifying their real position.
February 22nd, 2010 at 6:53 pm
So Dredd,
You think FAC tried to play us on a2f2a?
February 22nd, 2010 at 7:02 pm
@ Dredd and Robert:
For what it’s worth, I believe Billy Bragg really was hoping some kind of useable solution would come out of a2f2a.com.
Cheers!
February 22nd, 2010 at 7:39 pm
Sam I Am … the p2pnet, torrentfreak, zeropaid, spammer uncovered?
The same sam I am who tried to tell everyone in an article posting on p2pnet (can’t find it at the moment Jon help me out) that all forms of encryption would be government licensed and all other forms of encryption would be deemed illegal. Ah too funny. Everyone knew he/it was chilling. Just read this old comment of his from Dec 2007 http://www.p2pnet.net/story/14294#comment-233926 I was in tears laughing. Was their really any doubt?
February 22nd, 2010 at 7:41 pm
@Jon:
Sure, Billy was hoping for a solution.
Unfortunately, his solution involved preserving and expanding a lot of the Status Quo mechanisms that are intended to keep people paying for every use of music “product”. Just like a number of the “featured artists” he was supposed to be fronting for, he came into the discussions with certain aspirations, completely clueless to the technical and adminstrative nightmares that such proposals would cause everyone else.
He (and some of his fellow artists, for sure) wanted the fans to support the creation of a new set of income “guarantees”, and hoped that “decriminalizing filesharing” would be the logical and justifying finishing touch to the dream. While I do understand and applaud the thinking that drove him to promote it all, I cannot escape the sheer sense of entitlement he demonstrated, by immediately taking personal offence when the obvious flaws in this thinking were pointed out, by many perfectly knowledgable and qualified people, and by going into this “away mode” (the way a child does when he doesn’t get his way) where he would pop out temporarily only to snipe at someone.
Nice way for the co-founder to act on such an important matter which he himself set the stage and helped write the very mission statement he wasn’t prepared to follow.
It’s one thing to say you’re looking for a truly alternative business model. But, you need to actually PURSUE ONE, to keep some credibility.
February 22nd, 2010 at 7:43 pm
@Robert
I think the FAC is not what it represents itself to be, take from that what you will.
@ Jon
” For what it’s worth, I believe Billy Bragg really was hoping some kind of useable solution would come out of a2f2a.com. ”
Maybe he was, and the FAC played him as well, but as of late I’m not so sure. Everyone who has been a part of A2F2A has
to come to their own conclusions, but it’s still very early, and A2F2A may bear fruit in spite of the FAC. The recent appearances
of REAL independent artists relating their experiences ( mostly VERY positive ) give some hope to the true mission statement,
Artists connecting with Fans.
February 22nd, 2010 at 7:45 pm
lmao nvm Jon I found it. http://www.p2pnet.net/story/18400 For reference if anyone wants to see what an authentic “Sam I Am” shill spews on p2pnet and other sites.
February 22nd, 2010 at 7:55 pm
@ rw above – anyone reading that woud think you and sam i am are buddies
February 22nd, 2010 at 7:57 pm
^^ I think you mean Roach and myself.
We’re not buddies. At one point, given his stated views on the RIAA I thought he might come around, but …
Cheers!
February 22nd, 2010 at 8:10 pm
My favourite Sam I am quote Feb 5 2009: http://www.p2pnet.net/story/18400
““Enforcement will continue to tighten under Obama/Biden; also Australia, New Zealand, Ireland and the EU directives in general, and piracy will gather far higher punishments with time. No one – one of us – wants an online police state and technical solutions aren’t worth the damage to the network. But encryption will likely become licensed as it facilitates crime and criminalizing infringement with significant penalties will help refocus hearts and minds, or at least result in one less pirate each time.””
HAHAHA. He was always a lost cause.
February 22nd, 2010 at 8:23 pm
Jon:
For whatever it’s worth, I hope this doesn’t end up in your spam-filter or somewhere.
Just because *you* went into the a2f2a thing with honest intentions didn’t mean that *they* did. The mere fact that Billy Bragg (and the other “FAC”heads) did such a radical “about-face” on the p2p issue should have been a strong indication that they were getting their strings pulled from somewhere else. Not really surprising how a2f2a went down….and easy to see who benefitted:
1. Remember all the nasty emails and pictures of sockpuppets and crap you got about a2f2a back when you first started trying to “dialog” with Bragg? Even if A2f2a never actually went anywhere, the mere fact that you were trying to dialog with apologists for Mandelson’s “digital economy” bullshit inevitably called your commitment to p2p/free-culture advocacy/corporate watchdog type stuff, into question with some people.
2. When A2f2a (predictably) stagnated into two mutually-antagonistic camps of pro-p2p/copyright-skeptic vs. FAC-supporters/apologists for 3-strikes, etc. — well, let’s just say it wouldn’t be that hard for the corporate media megaliths/their cronies in government to spin that into something bad — namely, their typical gambit of “p2p “thieves” against poor, beleaguered artists”, leaving *you* to look bad to either faction.
I really *don’t* think Bragg was ever honest, if for no other reason than that he wouldn’t admit that supporting a “kinder and gentler” version of what the corporate lobby wanted (3-strikes) *still* amounted to a “big win” for them. He kept trying to “spin” it into some nonsense about how FAC “really took a stand”, which was intensely frustrating for anybody who was actually being honest about the situation.
Face it: you were played. Of course, a *lot* of people were “played”, in that Billy Bragg (for instance) tries to look all counter-culture and “anti-corporate” and suchlike, but doesn’t hesitate to get in bed with Mandy’s digital tyranny bill.
He can play “the Internationale” at his concerts all he wants, but that still doesn’t change the facts.
February 22nd, 2010 at 8:29 pm
@Dredd: YOU are a genius, my friend! People need to link to this article on every site that BugBoy trolls.
Happy now, BugBoy?
LOL!
February 22nd, 2010 at 8:29 pm
@ Henry:
a2f2a.com was, and is, about putting artists and fans together for their mutual benefit.
Nothing has changed, as far as I’m concerned.
Check this out – http://a2f2a.com/2010/02/22/a2f2a-massive-monster-mash/ (I’ve literally just posted it)
I have a totally insane idea.
a2f2a.com was started with the idea of putting fans and musicians together.
So let’s put them together.
All in one place.
The UK is where most of the (in)action is happening at the moment, so let’s organise a concert — a Massive Monster Mash — specifically so fans and musicians can meet in the same place at the same time and trade thoughts and opinions …
… artists to fans to artists.
Have half-a-dozen bands, say, not on a stage, but in a performing area surrounded by fans. They’d each do a short set, break, talk to fans via roaming mics/cameras broadcast live on X number of big screens so everyone could see and hear, and then the next band would take its turn.
And so on.
Film and tape it and turn it into a documentary for free release online, and for showing in offline cinemas.
That’s one way we’d make it clear the Rock Tsars aren’t where it’s at.
Devilish Presley’s Jacqui and Johnny are both in the UK and the other day I was talking to them about this. They reckon it would take six months or so to put such an event together.
Could it be done more quickly?
Either way, IMHO, it’d be a great opportunity for a documentary/film maker or two, half-a-dozen bands and who knows how many fans to make it clear who’s really in charge.
I know, I know. It’s an insane idea and I haven’t really thought it through.
But anyway …
And isn’t this kind of thing what a2f2a.com is all about?
And it would be a media magnet with the focus on us instead of them.
Cheers!
February 22nd, 2010 at 8:32 pm
PS — Good to see you back, Henry.
Cheers!
February 22nd, 2010 at 8:33 pm
” he mere fact that Billy Bragg (and the other “FAC”heads) did such a radical “about-face” on the p2p issue should have been a strong indication that they were getting their strings pulled from somewhere else. Not really surprising how a2f2a went down….and easy to see who benefitted: ”
Oddly enough, doing a google search for Featured Artist Coalition pulls up more that a few hits of folks that noticed that very thing, and weren’t pleased at all. That odd little ’switch’ of theirs caused them to lose a lot of credibility in many circles, not just here. The FAC is hurting itself badly using the same ’shoot ourselves in the foot’ problem that the RIAA bigwigs have. The FAC’s message is starting to look an awful lot like ‘puffery’ to a whole lot of people, including the fans and fellow artists they claim to care so much about.
I never had a doubt about Jon’s intentions, and I’m glad you accept that as well.
February 22nd, 2010 at 8:38 pm
@ Dredd and Henry:
a2f2a.com is still very much alive and will stay that way. It can do a lot and all this other stuff was just other stuff. Nothing more.
But of course, you guys don’t have to go there.
Cheers!
February 22nd, 2010 at 8:55 pm
“For what it’s worth, I believe Billy Bragg really was hoping some kind of useable solution would come out of a2f2a.com”
I’m a born cynic, but I wanted to believe that, I still want to believe that. But the FAC’s abrupt reversal on three strikes, because people were “rude” to Lily Allen smelled bad. Billy’s “give me what I want on copyright or the FAC won’t change it’s mind” seemed like blackmail, if the FAC initially thought three strikes was wrong, why do they now need agreement on copyright? Now, last but not least, we learn that p2pnet’s favorite shill Sam “the Roach” I am was involved in the founding of FAC. I have to say (sadly) that all this has caused me not to trust Billy. I have some questions about FAC, which I’m sure will never be answered.
Seeing that Sam “the Roach” I am was involved in it’s founding, what is FAC’s connection to the labels?
If FAC claims to have no label connection, why was Sam I Am involved with it’s founding?
What is the full member list of FAC?
Who on that list voted for three strikes?
February 22nd, 2010 at 9:02 pm
What you have on A2F2A is one guy who is straight up and one guy who is straight down. Can you guess which is which?
February 22nd, 2010 at 9:04 pm
Henry, it swings both ways. a2f2a is about artists and fans – NOT labels, nor their government cronies. All artists and fans can see through the discussions on a2f2a to make their own mind up.
Billy (and FAC) had a choice, whether to join a disintermediated marketplace, or stay with the old guard and augment draconian copyright enforcement with an ISP tax. It seems he’s leaning toward the latter, the blue pill of comfort and familiarity. Meanwhile, artists and fans deal with each other directly more and more each day.
So, no, Jon has not been ‘played’.
February 22nd, 2010 at 9:09 pm
” Henry, it swings both ways. a2f2a is about artists and fans – NOT labels, nor their government cronies. All artists and fans can see through the discussions on a2f2a to make their own mind up. ”
That’s precisely why A2F2A is still a good idea. It’s just started getting posts by unaffiliated artists that are doing well, and telling THEIR stories. The goal is still the same, and still reachable.
February 22nd, 2010 at 9:16 pm
” If FAC claims to have no label connection, why was Sam I Am involved with it’s founding? ”
A bad quote from a good movie “they’ll come at you sideways, that’s the way they think”.
Technically ,Sam IS an artist .. anyone who has spent any time making a good solid music video would know that to be true.
Technically, Sam isn’t officially affiliated with any particular label, so, in typical sideways fashion the statement ..
Sam is an artist and is not owned by a label .. is 100% true while also being false. I think we ALL really want to see a FAC member list to see who ELSE is there that only belongs there in a ’sideways’ fashion.
February 22nd, 2010 at 9:27 pm
Crosbie:
Of course artists have “a choice” — as does everybody else.
My point — and I stand by this — is that (judging at least in part from my dealings with him here on p2pnet), he *made* his “choice” long before getting involved with a2f2a, and — importantly — misrepresented what he chose.
As for the idea about “joining a disinterested marketplace”? Nope. Given the existence of copyright itself, it is far more accurate to say that p2p/free-culture etc. are *creating* a disinterested marketplace where none existed previously — or at least, are enabling the POSSIBILITY of such a thing.
That’s why the corporate megaliths and their cronies are trying to ram things like 3-strikes, etc. down the collective cultural throat — *they* resent the emergence of things like p2p networkds, whereby every peer *in principle* becomes a “publisher”, and the dissemination of any particular bit of cultural “product” can no longer be effectively monopolized, so as to be channeled only into “authorized” channels.
Copyright *by definition*, creates an “interested” market, in that it legitimizes the notion of “authorized” vs. “unauthorized” suppliers.
Pardon if this wasn’t explained or worded well, but I think you get the general idea I’m going for.
Now, where Bragg (and FAC) fit in, is — if you remember — when he tries to claim that supporting punitive bandwidth-throttling after “3-strikes” is somehow substantively different from advocating disconnection after 3-strikes. *Much Less* trying to spin that as some kind of “win” against the corporate lobbyists.
I mean, seriously: it amounts to the “difference” between the *life-long* institution of Race-based chattel slavery, and the “kinder, gentler”, shorter-term version (indentured servitude). BOTH concede the essential principle — namely, that *some* individuals can be “owned” by others.
Likewise, Billy’s “kinder and gentler” 3-strikes *still* operates from the premise that something WORTHY OF PUNISHMENT *has* occurred.
The “about-face” would be bad enough, but does anybody remember his statements about how if he took an explicitly pro-p2p stand, he’d be “totally ostracized” by the labels, etc.? That tells *me*, that he was (and presumably still is) far more concerned with appeasing THE LABELS, than he is, in taking any kind of “stand” against their draconian bullshit.
So yeah, I think Jon *was* “played”, in that Billy had him believing that he *and FAC* were actually going to stand against the worst aspects of the multinational corporate megaliths’ game-plan.
Hope that makes sense.
L8r
February 22nd, 2010 at 9:49 pm
Henry, you seem to be missing my point. If Jon is Charlie Brown and Billy/FAC is Lucy, then who do you think comes off best in the audience’s eyes when Lucy holds the ball and then snatches it away as Charlie comes to kick it? Charlie for giving Lucy a chance? Or Lucy for a successful trick? Don’t forget that Jon is dry behind the ears.
February 22nd, 2010 at 9:52 pm
Just like charlie, Jon will ALWAYS give ‘Lucy’ a chance.
I think that just makes him the better man, NOT the fool.
February 22nd, 2010 at 9:55 pm
If one wants to see this as a short tactical and long strategic thing Jon has won on both counts. But I don’t think it was that.
February 22nd, 2010 at 9:55 pm
Point taken:
But there’s also the old adage “fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.”
I guess maybe I’m just more paranoid. Hell, I *know* I’m paranoid.
I didn’t mean to suggest that Jon was *ever* in bed with the 3-strikes crowd. In fact, he’s roundly (and rightly) denounced such tactics numerous times. The “Lucy” characterization is pretty much what I was getting at, actually.
And actually, if you want to be technical: in the above-mentioned “Peanuts” example, Charlie Brown becomes less sympathetic (and more outright pitiful) every time he falls for Lucy’s tricks.
Glad to see the “Fuc the FAC” tag-line Jon uses sometimes. It indicates to me that he (and others) have probably FINALLY taken the “rose-colored glasses” off, and looked at the FAC for what it is — just another corporate-lobbyist puppet-show.
Complete with BugBoy, aka “S(p)am I Am”.
February 22nd, 2010 at 10:01 pm
@ Paulus.
It was, and is, exactly as it seems to be. Nothing clever.
Cheers!
February 22nd, 2010 at 10:06 pm
Paulus:
Agreed, in that Jon got the opportunity to create something potentially good.
What would be really cooll, is if a2f2a turned out to be *exactly* the counter-wedge to fake, corporate-apologist crap like the FAC — and it turned out that Billy Bragg intended that outcome all along.
I just don’t know if anything that “storybook” happens in real life, or at least, not that often.
February 22nd, 2010 at 10:11 pm
Sam “The Roach” I Am’s involvement with the FAC poured gasoline on the flames of my already growing paranoia regarding that organization. To continue the Peanuts analogy, I think that Charlie has now seized the football, took some friends with him, and is leaving Lucy behind.
February 22nd, 2010 at 10:17 pm
What’s really fascinating, is how, back when I started posting here on p2pnet, BugBoy tried to portray himself as some kind of mirror-image of me. In other words, “Me” as a technologically-illiterate, corporate lap-dog shill.
He took *special* glee in attacking me in very personal terms, and I reciprocated in kind. Glad to know he had *other business* that time he was bleating on and on about going to England, to try to see “lammy”.
Well, good part here, is that BugBoy has been “outed” as the corporate shill puppet we all knew he was, and has thus, lost any potential leverage his anonymous trolling might have given him.
February 23rd, 2010 at 12:06 am
Well, look who just crawled out from under the woodwork!
Nice to see ya back, Henry.
[puts on tinfoil hat, LOL!]
Hmmm, wonder if this headline might have had anything to do with it, huh?!
Just to point something out…
Crosbie’s words were “…disintermediated marketplace”. (Not “…disinterested…”)
Small oversight, but there is a huge difference between the two!
February 23rd, 2010 at 12:20 am
@Monkey …
Note the language used by Sam …
“UK Digital Initiative, London, England, February 20, 2009
Attendee and participant in the core focus group leading to the formation of the Featured Artists Coalition.”
Special attention to the words “Focus Group”.
This makes it appear that the FAC was created as part of a ‘damage control’ type of MARKETING CAMPAIGN.
It may have been specifically designed by a marketing agency to appeal to ( or appease ) a fast growing segment of disillusioned fans, an attempt to humanize the millionaires club that seem to be the bulk of the FAC membership.
The FAC may be nothing more than a cleverly constructed propaganda machine carefully designed by the marketing arms of the AA’s.
February 23rd, 2010 at 12:51 am
@Dredd
This is one of the major reasons people including me have been asking for a full membership list of the FAC. Billy’s response on a2f2a http://a2f2a.com/2010/02/15/is-a2f2a-com-dead/ post no. 83 was nasty, accusing us of wanting to go on a “witch hunt”. My two post response hasn’t been published yet, I basically explained to him what a real witch hunt is, and gave him the two major reasons why I want the full membership and to know who on it voted for three strikes. It wouldn’t surprise me if he yanked the financial rug out from under a2f2a, as his chances of getting what he wants out of it have dropped like a lead zeppelin now that Sam “The Cockroach” I Am has been exposed as one of the FAC founders.
February 23rd, 2010 at 1:21 am
” 83 was nasty, accusing us of wanting to go on a “witch hunt”. ”
just saw that, last time I checked that thread, BB hadn’t said anything other than ( paraphrasing ) “SEE JON DIDN’T GET RICH IN A WEEK
SO YOU GUYS ARE FULL OF SHIT” about 12 times. He’s still the first to come out with the name calling ( ‘Zombie-Fitch’ ftw ), something
that they claim is the exclusive domain of mean ‘ol P2P supporters. With two more unafilliated artists showing up in that thread that are
doing pretty well he’s running out of anything else I guess. Some suggestions for me .. “DeadStick” or Jalapeno-on-a-stick ( so I robbed
Jeff Dunham, I AM half Mexican ). BB says A2F2A is dying, I got a feeling it’s just about to light up.
February 23rd, 2010 at 1:44 am
@Monkey
Yes, agreed! He was engaging with Crosbie (or as Billy Bragg called him “Zombie Fitch”) discussing things initially while BB did really try to get Crosbie to say “yeah it didn’t work, donations don’t work” because unless regulated (via license demanding to anyone with internet access, aka “internet tax” supported by Indianna Gregg) or unless you have, as BB says, some method to ensure “where money is made, artists are paid.”
So technically, BB didn’t say “internet tax”, Indianna suggested the similar-sounding license fee idea. BB just wants to ensure royalties are paid when people profit from his work.
Crosbie was targetting both BB and IG, not just BB even though he addressed only BB. BB tends to blanket target people too, it happens, life moves on.
More amusing is:
“The truth is, Jon, a2f2a is dead. Without artists willing to come and engage, then it’s a zombie site, with the same six people violently agreeing with each other, trying to keep their ardour up until the next unwitting victim walks down this dark alleyway in search of a reasoned debate.”
Especially the second sentence, I guess Clark, Mr Louie Louie, the newcommers Develish Preseley’s, the bassist Steve Lawson , and a few others I am forgetting, don’t count in BB’s eyes as artists willing to come and engage. Maybe BB is thinking solely of FAC members? There’s a hell of a lot more musicians outside FAC than in FAC, even with the label push. I’d like to see Trent Reznor join the discussion too, I’m sure he’d have a thing or two to say to BB when the “witch hunt” comment was made.
Oh, and Jon, doesn’t that type of post violate the terms of agreement for a2f2a.com?
February 23rd, 2010 at 1:53 am
Best, most succinct, illustration of the basic problem with Billy Bragg’s “participation” over on A2f2a:
“Summary:
Billy Bragg #1: “The sight of your own community failing to come to the aid of one of its greatest champions has so severely undermined the libertarian argument that I doubt there is much left to be said.”
Billy Bragg #4: “Did you not see what just happened here? Jon tried out your business model, asking the p2p community for support, and it didn’t work.”
Billy Bragg #12: “So here’s the question – why were the users of p2pnet, who greatly value Jon’s work, unwilling to become his customers?”
Billy Bragg #16: “The users of p2p.net clearly want the intellectual work that Jon produces, yet none of them were willing to exchange money in order to continue to receive it.”
Billy Bragg #18: “Your experience in the past month has been a stark illustration of the fact that it is very difficult for an individual creator to survive on the support of fans alone.”
Billy Bragg #31: “Because they don’t want to end up in the situation that Jon finds himself in – having to choose between supporting his family or carrying on with p2p.net.”
Billy Bragg #33: “So let me get this right, Crosbie: you don’t think that you have anything to learn from what happened to Jon?”
Billy Bragg #37: “Crosbie, I’m not scared that artists might consider directly exchanging their labour with the money of their fans. I’m just wondering if you have any comment on what happened to Jon when he tried to do just that?”
Billy Bragg #39: “Why did the magic equation fail?”
Billy Bragg #41: “So you’re not interested in talking about how a creator like Jon can rely on users like yourself to supply his income?”
Billy Bragg #44: “Jon simply asked those who read his news articles if they would pay him to continue producing work and the answer was no.”
Billy Bragg #50: “Jon tried relying on the support of his fans – the very people who have been proposing this solution – and it didn’t work.”
Jon Newton #74: “Those p2pnet people who aren’t prepared to pay for p2pnet reads have, since the start of the month, nonetheless put their hands in their pockets to the tune of $918.28″
Conclusion: Did you ever get the feeling Billy Bragg wanted Jon to fail? Despite Jon’s repeated corrections to the contrary, does Billy go back to FAC with the message that the p2p community will not support artists and use Jon’s “failure” as proof?”
Comment #75 on http://a2f2a.com/2010/02/15/is-a2f2a-com-dead/
Whatever his protestations to the contrary, Bragg’s attempts to use Jon’s financial difficulties as “proof” that the corporate media megaliths represent the only viable business-model for artistic creation, should clearly illustrate his *real* agenda — WAY beyond anything as mundane as advocating an ISP tax, or similar.
(Also, given the fact that Greg “S(p)am I Am” roach — BugBoy, as I now affectionately call him — has infested FAC since before there even WAS any such thing as FAC (focus group prior to it’s founding)….well, you don’t have to be paranoid to see the pattern.
In addition, I really don’t see how a complete list of FAC members is that important. All you need to know is that *some* members (or “consultants”) are corporate weasels/apologists for same. They just need to feed FAC the correct “scare-stories”, and FAC falls in line, whether they were originally intending it to be a corporate front-group, or not.
February 23rd, 2010 at 6:54 am
Robert, lest anyone get the wrong idea, I readily agreed with Billy that donations, charity, and ‘give it away and pray’ are not business models, cannot work as business models, and that they are not proposed as business models. Donations can keep the wolf from the door, and street musicians can sometimes survive on them, but artists and fans need a means of exchanging art for money, i.e. a means of doing business. So do news sites such as p2pnet.
As much as the owner of a car may like to give their neighbour’s kid some pocket money in the hope that one day they might offer to do them something in return, and as much as the neighbour’s kid might like to wash their neighbour’s car to cheer them up, in the hope that one day they might give them some pocket money, ultimately, if you want the car washed today, and you want pocket money today, you get down to business and do a deal. Charity and doing favours for each other is nice and helpful, but it’s not business.
The future of our business is not the monopoly of copyright, nor the taxation of communication, but a fair exchange in a free market:
Art for money, money for art.
When the market for copies has ended, the market for intellectual work remains.
February 23rd, 2010 at 12:30 pm
” Especially the second sentence, I guess Clark, Mr Louie Louie, the newcommers Develish Preseley’s, the bassist Steve Lawson , and a few others I am forgetting, don’t count in BB’s eyes as artists willing to come and engage. Maybe BB is thinking solely of FAC members? ”
No they don’t count in his eyes, and yes, only the ‘Featured Artists’ count. It’s the Label way of thinking.
If you’re not signed you CAN’T exist. Since they used to control all outlets they could make sure you didn’t
exist.
The newcomers are the ones the FAC claims to care so deeply about ( new, struggling, etc ..) but it didn’t
escape my, or anyone else’, notice that he won’t acknowledge their presence, especially the fact that the
majority of them seem to be pretty happy with how things are going for them. According to BB and the FAC
they CAN’T exist, so they are blotted from his eyesight.
It’s pretty F’in weird.
February 23rd, 2010 at 12:34 pm
As a ‘just in case’, I saved the linked in page so it can’t mysteriously vanish forever.
I suggest any other interested parties do the same. If the page vanishes into the
‘ether’ as Lilly’s did no one will ever know for sure.
February 23rd, 2010 at 1:33 pm
fwiw, I called Billy out from the start, slapped his bullshit aside, and never bothered with him afterwards..
as for Sam I Am,.. ever watch a Tiger play with a mouse? I miss the Henry ‘bitch-slap-sessions’ with Sam..
stw
February 23rd, 2010 at 3:47 pm
@Dredd
“I suggest any other interested parties do the same. If the page vanishes into the
‘ether’ as Lilly’s did no one will ever know for sure.”
Done
http://www.mp2pnews.theunbound.org/forum/viewtopic.php?topicid=25&p=1
February 23rd, 2010 at 3:54 pm
I like what Jon does here, but just because I’m not well spoken, or verbous enough I’m going to be ignored when I DO have an opinion? Sorry all, but this whole thing about FAC is one big gotcha that nobody was interested in being shown when it started.
All of this, with the a2f2a, and the elitist attitudes of certain people here and there, is why I left off posting comments here.
I’m not interested in being told things like, “if you really contribute people will answer back and accept what you post” (para-phrased)
So good luck to Jon on keeping this thing floating, and fuc the FAC for the schills they ALL are.
Just my opinion……….take it or leave it!
February 23rd, 2010 at 5:53 pm
The style and quoted text written by “Sam I Am” here at p2pnet is identical to that written by “Reasoned Mind” at TorrentFreak and “The Anti-Mike” at Techdirt (I don’t frequent Zeropaid). It is nice to finally put nor only a name and face to all of his posts, but the true motivation behind them as well. Let that be a lesson to those whom believe anonymity can ever be 100% fool proof.
February 23rd, 2010 at 6:12 pm
Happily I managed to have a stored text only version of her blog , heres what it said. Sorry for the mess Jon this is how the text was saved so its unformatted but I thought some might like to see what she felt was so abusive she deleted it.
It’s Not Alright: The opposition-Linkskip to main | skip to sidebar It’s Not
Alright
Wednesday, September 23, 2009
The opposition-Link
I emailed the person that runs this site and asked him if i could publish his
piece here. he hasn’t got back to me so, i’ll just post a link to his site.
makes for interesting reading and some good points.
FYI I set this blog up as a way of getting peoples voices heard, i’m not opposed
to putting up letters disagreeing with the anti-piracy stance or the proposed
legislastion as long as they are not personal jibes directed at myself. I am
just standing up for what i believe in and i want to listen to peoples
thoughts/opinions on the matter. Slagging me, my music and my so called “family
connections” off, and calling me a government puppet is not going to get anyone
anywhere, so stop it. I think people assume we artists are a lot richer than you
think we are, please bear in mind this doesn’t have anything to do with me or my
wealth. Just so you know, I have not renegotiated my record contract and have no
plans to make another record (applause). I do however remain a fan of new music,
so this is not some selfish crusade. The days of me making money from recording
music has been and gone as far as i’m concerned, so i don’t(at this point) stand
to profit from legislation. except future purchases of previously recorded
material(which wont be much).
anyway heres that link
http://lefsetz.com/wordpress/
Posted by lily rose allen at 4:26 AM
35 comments:
stately homes of england said…
Do you have a vacancy for a proof-reader? I’m your man…
September 23, 2009 4:54 AM
Pieter said…
I think the problem here is that there IS no discussion. I read your posts, I
see the support emails, but I don’t see any entries from you in the comments
answering some of the legitimate questions people ask in here. I’ve asked it
before, and I’ll ask it again:
1. Why do you feel current penalties for copyright infringement are
insufficient that disconnecting people needs to be added to it?
2. Why do you think that disconnecting people based on accusations rather than
proof, and without judicial oversight (a court of law) is a good idea, and how
will it help solve that which you perceive is a problem?
September 23, 2009 4:54 AM
Gabriel Casey said…
Lilly,
Are you sure that there aren’t some personal jibes in that blog? Perhaps i
read the wrong blog – but he seemed to be saying that you were ignorant,
unattractive, a bad singer, and an at least semi-manufactured act.
Anyway – glad to see that you are approaching this important debate in the
spirit of hearing all sides. How about going even further – drop a line to
Annie Lennox or Ed ‘Ferraris’ O’Brien from Radiohead and ask them if they
would like to contribute a piece to this blog?
September 23, 2009 4:55 AM
vtaltos.mp said…
Bob makes a lot of sense. He’s not just “the opposition,” Lily. He’s someone
who understand the business and actually has a clue what he’s talking about.
I particularly like the part where he explains why you never really made it in
the US. Enough to make you go like bit.ly/yjU7A
September 23, 2009 4:58 AM
DJ Bricksta said…
Lily
Is there anyway you can have a chatroom or something with musicans regarding
these issues? Im willing to discuss it but due to the crazy responses you have
to every bloody little thing you post I honestly dont want to spend hours
writing something for it to be ignored. For the record, im an indie artist in
Canberra, Australia that doesnt make a cent from any of my music and ive kind
of resigned to that even though I have releases coming up.
I dont think the guy from Muse’s idea is the answer at all, nobody wants to
have different rates and it looks so sucky to do that. The only way to change
the culture is to embrace it and figure out the best way to monitise it. Look
at Spotify and what they are doing, imagine that around the world. Look at the
stats regarding spotify users downloading illegally after subscribing.
Regards from Australia
Luke
September 23, 2009 5:00 AM
Alan.. said…
Do you honestly think you are helping the debate?
You clearly misunderstood the FAC’s intentions and all you seem to have
achieved is dividing artists into two different camps, despite the fact that
both camps’ viewpoints are by and large aligned with one another.
Well done I guess.
September 23, 2009 5:05 AM
Trogster said…
“Ignorant, unattractive, a bad singer, and an at least semi-manufactured act.
“…
That’s a little unfair. She’s also a plagiarist.
September 23, 2009 5:11 AM
moogleboi said…
This post has been removed by the author.
September 23, 2009 5:20 AM
moogleboi said…
This post has been removed by the author.
September 23, 2009 5:21 AM
Trogster said…
Just think for a moment about what the internet gives us, Lily, even taking
your blog as an example. It gives us a voice, and most of us don’t have record
contracts so that voice is more important than otherwise. Opinions are always
going to differ and that is a constructive part of the debate process, but
what you’re pushing for (with an extreme conflict of interest) is the forcible
removal of that voice by the government but without government/judicial
oversight merely because someone alleges that I’m doing something wrong.
You’re entitled to your opinion, and the internet gives you the power to
express it. But if your opinion is that others shouldn’t have access to the
internet because the record companies say so, you can take that opinion and
shove it up your arse.
September 23, 2009 5:32 AM
Steve said…
Actually, if this is the opposition (may I suggest there are MULTIPLE points
of view on this topic, not just two as ‘the opposition’ would seem to suggest)
then they’re making a lot of sense.
He mentions Metallica and they really are a fantastic example of how to do
things in the internet age. They got it horribly wrong with Napster but my god
have they come back strong. Downloadable content, for free, of their new
material. An entire (free) archive of bootleg and official live recordings
from old shows. EVERY live gig they do recorded direct from the sounddesk and
available a few days after the show for $10. Of course they also produced
their best album for 20 years to go with this which helps as well but still,
it’s a great model.
And that’s the main point really – it IS possible to make money, to discover
new revenue streams and to engage your fans in new and interesting ways. But
all the record companies and the artists that support them seem interested in
doing is maintaining the status quo.
Why do CD’s still cost £12 or more brand new when they’re in sales not three
months later for a fiver or less? Why are on-line tracks around £1 each
instead of a fraction of that? Where’s the effort to give fans rewards for
buying legit media that can’t be copied (NIN’s recent glossy photo books
spring to mind, or maybe a unique code that discounts gig tickets)? Why
doesn’t every artist big enough to afford their own equipment make their gigs
available for purchase after the shows considering it’s VERY cheap to do so?
Most importantly where’s the effort to adapt the distribution channel to
reflect the increased choice the internet has brought? I personaly haven’t
found a new band I like for about three years but don’t, for one minute, think
there’s no-one out there that fits the bill. It’s just that it’s so damn hard
to find ‘em. Stuff like iTunes Genius feature is a help but that’s still in
its infancy. Where’s the single, concentrated effort by the industry to
provide their OWN portal for showcasing new talent? Where’s the attempt to
trully use the power and flexibility of the net to provide a modern
alternative to Top of the Pops and the range of new music shows that used to
exist? Where’s the internet radio channels dedicated to playing those bands
that don’t get coverage on Radio 1? Where, in short, is the innovation?
Start meeting the customer halfway and your position will be an awful lot more
credible than it is at the moment.
September 23, 2009 5:42 AM
poojinky said…
you need to look outside our governments as you have to think of technology
and international law
i did one search via google I wont put the search term in here but i had a
minimum of 10 pages that all had accessible mp3’s for certain artists current
chart music and albums this wasnt torrents this was mp3’s on servers ready to
download
this is your biggest problem consider that the EU puts some legislation down
to remedy this … pirates t’internet baddies and anyone that wants to pain
the industry can simply buy domain names in countries that have low political
ties with anyone and dont care what your hosting as long as your paying them
some money
if you want the search term ask me for it … I would be interested to know
how far you get in prosecuting these people/companies
Poojinky
September 23, 2009 6:05 AM
The Felony said…
It would be easier for new artists to get heard if the market wasn’t saturated
with rich kids and X factor losers.
September 23, 2009 6:15 AM
Michael said…
The file sharing debate is hotting up nicely. I’m in the unfortunately
position of agreeing with both sides.
Record companies have historically being 2 things. A loan shark, and a plastic
box distributor. Now the distribution arm is all but severed they need the
loan shark business to be even more ruthless.
This is where young artist find them self’s in trouble, as many are indebted
for many years, some may never recover. But these artist have chosen to go
with a record label in full knowledge that will be indebted to them for many
years, also any artist that signed in the last 5 years or did so in full
knowledge the record business model was broken.
The record labels are of course responsible for some of the problems, when
itunes was launched it had a better product than the free version even with
the DRM. While the record labels fought to milk the new cash cow tying the
legal online businesses up in needless battles, the free product developed
much faster to once again become superior, music and films online as soon as
they are available not on some misguided release cycle, higher quality files,
easier and faster to acquire, and often with extra content not available
elsewhere, etc. Also people couldn’t understand why a poorer quality download
was often more expensive than a physical copy.
The genie is out the bottle we are not going to stop file sharing, you can’t
ask ISP’s to do it as this would constitute spying. We need the net to remain
neutral, it has to be a dumb pipe just like gas or electricity.
In the UK there is already a mechanism is place we could use to help the media
industry.
The TV license is quickly becoming irrelevant in its current form due to the
advancement of technology. Although I like the fact that we have a TV license
and that we produce public content, I do feel the beeb is getting a little to
big. I don’t want bbc 512 or bbc radio 214, and we clearly don’t need it
either, otherwise there would be no repetes.
So my proposal is this, we scrap the TV license and replace it with a Media
License. Part of the new media license would still go the funding public
content, the bbc is important, but it would also serve as the mechanism to
help content producers get paid from the UKs consumption.
As all content in the not so distant future is going to be available on
demand. The media license would allow the UK to negotiate the right to all
media content as a nation, I would imagine this would give us quite a
substantial discount. But it would give us a fund from which artists, writers,
directors, extras, etc can be paid fairly for there work. It’s the unseen
people i worry about not the so called stars as they no doubt will make their
money though other means advertising and the like. But we are all entitled to
be paid fairly for work we do.
The media license doesn’t mean CDs or downloads would be free to UK citizens
as you would still need to pay for the packaging should you choose. i.e. the
CD, box and booklet from HMV or the download and digital content from itunes.
I would assume that it would be a lot cheaper as it’s rumour that apples cut
is only around 15% of the sale and from this apple have to pay all
transaction, bandwidth, and hosting fees. All companies wishing to sell media
content in the UK would then have to install a system similar to radio so
content creators are paid fairly. The itunes application already logs what we
play, so maybe we do it though the junk box software, to make sure that
content distributed by other means is counted as well. But the media license
means each UK citizen has a license see and hear all content.
I don’t believe it is a perfect system but as it would be unworkable to stop
illegal downloads it a step in the right direction. It would mean one almighty
change to the UK media landscape and change is never easy. Also we are but one
nation and this is a global problem but that doesn’t stop us trying to put our
own house in order.
September 23, 2009 6:21 AM
IgnoranceNeverRests said…
While that blog is a little personal, he does have a good understanding of the
technology involved which is something that you and the other artists on this
blog desperately need to come to terms with.
You can’t stop file-sharing by legislating against it. People will move from
the relatively insecure systems they use today toward anonymous networks like
Tor and I2P, or they’ll use encrypted VPNs to tunnel right out of the country.
Even if you turned the internet *off* people would just trade encrypted
drives.
“You’re just driving people further underground, you’re not solving the
problem.”
The industry has been waging a war on file sharing for a decade now, and yet
it is easier to do today than ever before.
September 23, 2009 6:29 AM
Aisha Shadow said…
The Misantrof Experiment
Proactive reaction rather than refusing to face reality and change with the
times. All the main music industry has succeeding in doing is making the
public believe that they are being charged too high a price for music.
Also if you remove people from the internet, some one will come along and
create a good peer-to-peer network and maybe then good old privacy can be
returned thanks to the pirates.
September 23, 2009 6:32 AM
Liam said…
The music industry owes ME money.
I bought the vinyl singles.
Then I was charged again for the same piece of music when I bought the vinyl
album.
Then the formats changed and I had to buy the same album, including those same
old singles, on CD.
Those CDs were almost twice the cost in the UK compared to America.
No-one from the record industry said sorry I had to buy a song 3 times – there
wasn’t money off the album if I’d bought the single, was there?
No, the music industry fleeced me at every opportunity so that rock stars
could drown in coke in guitar-shaped swimming pools.
So, if musicians – and karaoke artists like Lily Allen – have to play a few
more live gigs to make a living then so be it.
September 23, 2009 6:38 AM
Philip said…
Those who think that copyright infringement is the same as theft are
fundamentally wrong.
There is an important difference. Creating an infringing copy does not deprive
the copyright holder of theirs. In theft, you not only get something for
yourself but deprive someone else of something.
Many forms of copyright infringement do not deprive companies of profit –
infringing copies are made or bought because the people involved cannot afford
or would not otherwise have bought a non-infringing copy.
In some cases sales might be boosted, for example someone who purchases a poor
quality infringing copy might then go and buy a non-infringing copy of better
quality.
In any case it is wrong to assume that copyright ownership is some sort of
natural right. Copyright is a state granted monopoly.
It is granted for a purpose – for the public benefit. The idea is that
copyright encourages the creation of copyright works, so that the public gets
to see or read or hear them, but that ultimately that copyright will end,
making the works free for everyone to use.
It’s because of this that copyright infringement itself is not a crime, only
*commercial* copyright infringement is – making bootleg copies for money.
Copyright infringement as we see it is really one side of a copyright
conflict, in which copyright holders try to get as much as they can
economically out of copyright works. Increasingly they use new technology to
achieve control of works which was not possible in the past and is not
desireable now.
For example, the region encoding of DVDs allows companies to extract money
from markets depending on demand.
There is no law which gives them a right to control copyright works in this
way. There is nothing illegal in buying a DVD in a cheap region and bringing
it into an expensive one but it is made as hard as possible to do.
I view widespread copyright infringement as a sign that copyright holders are
squeezing too hard for profit, charging too much for what they produce,
particularly in Europe.
From my point of view, domestic piracy is likely revenue neutral within the
overall context of the economy. In other words, for every dollar that is saved
on excessively priced electronic media, one dollar is made available to be
spent in other sectors of the economy.
September 23, 2009 6:43 AM
Tom said…
It’s just a url unless you make it a link.
Here is the link:
http://lefsetz.com/wordpress
How to make links:
http://www.w3schools.com/html/html_links.asp
September 23, 2009 6:46 AM
Monster said…
I dont know exactly where to put this, so here will do. Hopefully, it will be
read.
Copies & backups, which ever you wish to call it (I will use copies), are
always going to be in our lives.
Example: You get married and have the Marrage Certificate. You then get that
certificate COPIED and send it off to official places, such as DVLA (Driver &
Vehicle Licencing Agency), and then they do whatever they need with it.
The underlying point is: You make copies to keep the original intact.
So to try and stop people copying music will never happen. This also applies
to games, films, and other material.
And the fact that music is supposed to be something everyone enjoys. So some
people would give a little money for a band in a pub, and they get better and
expect higher amounts of money.. but the overall process is that they love the
music they are playing. They do NOT perform for the money. They perform for
the joy of music.
Also, all facts, yes – I said FACTS, point to that the money is made from live
performances. Gigs, for example.
Then there is also the fact that people who illegally download are far more
likely to buy the music they enjoy. (You remember that from above?). Call it
“Try before you buy”. They listen to the music, and decide what they like. And
most content is available before it is heard on the radio, along with full
albums, and therefore we can decide wether we should buy the music or not.
Imagine going to a store and being told you can buy a certain item, such as
“Nike – Air”. You have no idea what it will look like, replace “look” with
“sound”, and you buy it.
Then you are told you cannot be refunded. Ever. How would that go down if you
just bought something you don’t like?
To say “illegal downloads destroys the music industry” is a bit far fetched,
especially when facts prove otherwise.
Also, when illegal downloads are more likely to BUY the music.
And it does not destroy the music, or stop the talent. Nothing stops you
picking up a guitar and just playing, and singing along.
The only thing it “destroys” is the industry. It will never end. Music will
continue, illegal downloads will continue. Long after mine, and your, death.
September 23, 2009 6:47 AM
Indie kid said…
where did you start Lily…. your fan base grew online before it did anywhere
else…..
September 23, 2009 6:50 AM
vtaltos.mp said…
@Indie kid,
…and now it’s bound to decrease! That’s what happens when you bite the hand
that feeds you. Lily’s the Metallica of the torrent generation.
Well done, lass.
September 23, 2009 6:58 AM
nuno miranda ribeiro said…
I am 34 years old. As a teenager I had no money to buy music. I had no
allowance and absolutelly no money to buy music. But I did listen to music. I
had dozens of tapes, copied tapes, of my favorite bands. Only when I started
working and had my first pay check I did start to buy music. Now, I buy a lot
of CD’s, every month. And the vast majority of the CD’s I buy are from bands I
only know about because of file-sharing. I am from Portugal. When I was young
there were almost no concerts of big, important bands. Now we have 12 major
summer festivals, with all the great international bands and dozens of smaller
and more alternative festivals. One example: Nneka’s singles started playing
in portuguese radios, when her second CD came out. And 3 months later she did
her first gig here. Two months later, her second gig here. How is it possible?
File-sharing makes sure that you can be known incredibly fast, and outside of
the marketing campaings made by record companies. So, even Nneka, with
absolutely no marketing in Portugal, could quickly have two concerts here
(completely sold out). If you stop file-sharing you are making sure that
small, alternative or weird sounding acts, bands with no contract and no
marketing do not get known. If you care about the new artists out there, you
should think about this. Copyrigths are very important. And young people must
ackowledge the work involved in the creation of a record. But file-sharers
should not be treated as criminals. Streamming (spotify, last.fm, iTunes,
grooveshark, imeem, etc) can be a way of copyrigth owners having their music
available for listening and easy to buy, with just a click. Artists must get
paid, and we must buy. But don’t pretend like no one is beneffiting from the
terabytes and terabytes of sharing. Sharing means that people, more people, in
more countries, do listen. If you had the technology to stop file-sharing
completely, it would be a finantial disaster. Concerts would be cancelled all
over the whole world. The most alternative bands would never have their songs
heard. What we need is a cooperation between sites, software companies, users
and consumers, bands and record companies. We must work togheter. If record
companies diabolize us consumers, the backlash will be a lot worse than the
problems we have nowadays. And, I repeat: now, I do buy a lot of CD’s. And
before using the internet, I copied every single album I had. So, don’t call
me a thieve or a criminal. For the last 10 years I have been paying (and
gladly) for the career of many bands. And I am willing to continue.
And you should also talk about the “Audio Home Recording Act”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Audio_Home_Recording_Act#AHRA_royalties
and the “Sound Recordings Act”
http://www.soundexchange.com/
They both collect and distribute royalties, from the selling of media
recorders and media support devices (AHRA) and from the digital broadcast of
music (SoundExchange).
So, record companies (more than artists) are getting paid for home recording
and for internet broadcast.
September 23, 2009 7:03 AM
Enrico Suarvé said…
“I think people assume we artists are a lot richer than you think we are…”
This from the girl who bought a Breitling watch for €4440 (£3990 approx) but
then advertised it on twitter…
“does anyone want to buy a brand new Breitling. its too big for me.”
“3200 quid, i bought it for 4440 euro, so id be making a loss.”
http://blog.breitlingsource.com/2009/09/09/lily-allen-sells-her-breitling-chronomat-on-twitter/
Yup Lily – the rest of us tend to assume that people who can afford coke
habits, and buy £4000 watches without trying them on are kind of, you know –
well off?
September 23, 2009 7:32 AM
thenutman69321 said…
@Enrico
Don’t forget about the BMW that she later had to sell because she can’t manage
her money worth a damn. Oh and all the clothes.
September 23, 2009 7:39 AM
richard said…
People always want something for nothing. While it is available they will get
it.
Musicians are in a wonderful position of being able to go into a studio, or
even their bedroom now-a-days, and produce something that will continue to
provide themselves and their descendants incomefor years and years after the
original artist dies. That seems pretty peachy to most people who get have to
continue to work to continue to get paid.
There’s the basis for the file-sharers mindset.
Personally I am opposed to disconnections of whole families when a single
member of the family has commited a crime on the internet, as it leads to a
second class citizenship. It’s just not fair at all. And two wrongs don’t make
a right.
I do think musicians should be rewarded for their work, and I see a mixture of
reports saying that music sales are growing and shrinking. I can’t seem to
post links here for some reason…
But to cut a long story short, people do not get the fair compensation for
their labours. Ever. Bankers get too much, manual workers too little, but
that’s capitalism and there’s nothing you can do about it.
September 23, 2009 7:43 AM
Lindsay said…
Dearest Lily,
This post has nothing to do with the piracy debate whatsoever.
I will quickly say that all of you need to get off her grammar lest people go
after yours. I have to laugh at the people knocking you for your poor grammar,
while they themselves have improper punctuation or misspelled words.
What this post is really about is your comment that you are not going to make
another record. I almost cried when I read that.
Your work is innovative, satirically clever, and musically brilliant.
Please do not let whatever it may be: music downloading, Perez “The
Ginormawhale” Hilton, or anything else stand in the way of your putting more
music out there.
Okay, I really don’t think Perez would stop you, as he is merely a waste of
oxygen, but ginormawhale just came to me, and it was too good to pass up.
The world (and in my view specifically young women) would be much poorer
without being able to sing along with your fabulously entertaining takes on
various subjects including religion, relationships, politics, etc.
You are a visionary voice in a deluge of grinding hips. Don’t leave us.
Cheers,
Lindsay
September 23, 2009 9:11 AM
stately homes of england said…
Lindsay, you are a nobhead…
September 23, 2009 9:59 AM
M-RES said…
Lets also remember that no matter what the artists have to say on the matter,
whether their views are based in sound ideas or not, the record companies and
their ‘industry bodies’ (the MAFIAA crew) are only interested in making money
for nothing.
Last week they started going after Apple for the 30 second preview clips that
you can listen to on iTunes Music Store. You know, those fractions of a tune
that let you decide whether you want to buy it or not (or sometimes let you
check that it’s the right tune you were looking for before you buy). The
MAFIAA’s members claim that those little preview clips constitute a
performance and as such require yet another royalty payment. Trouble is, those
‘performances’ won’t necessarily lead to a sale – you may have a listen and
then decide it’s not the track you were looking for and try another and
another and another before you finally find the song you wanted and pay your
79 pence. If Apple have to pay a royalty for each of those plays they’d end up
out of pocket for a high percentage of their sales. Do you think these
additional royalties are likely to find their way back to the artist? I doubt
it. Have any of the ridiculous ‘damages’ awarded in the high profile MAFIAA
trials in the US for the sharing of the affected tracks made their way back to
the supposedly affected artists? I’d wager they haven’t even trickled through.
The musicians who are attacking file sharers may have their hearts in the
right place (or think they do), but they’re ultimately just helping to prop up
a bunch of mobsters who are demanding money with menaces (oft referred to as
extortion) – and that IS a criminal offence you know.
September 23, 2009 10:33 AM
grumpiestboi said…
I don’t really see there’s either a “for”, or an “against” here…there’s no
opposition because, really, there’s no debate left to have.
Piracy isn’t going away. Where there’s media, there’ll be piracy.
Piracy isn’t new, it’s been around for decades and the music and film
industries have had plenty of time to figure out other ways of making money.
“How to stop piracy” isn’t the question. The question is “How to make money,
given piracy”.
Personally I, like many people I know, am no fan of buying MP3s, I miss the
liner notes, having something physical on the shelf – and the notion that if
my rip gets corrupted, I can just make another from the original. I view
filesharing much as the radio, but with the advantage of hearing the whole
album before buying – if, subsequently, your album isn’t one I decide to
purchase, it won’t be one I decide to listen to, either. That being the case,
I see no moral argument against filesharing at all.
If artists want to increase music sales, there is one simple thing they can do
– improve value.
I, personally, can think of bunches of ways to do this (great post by Steve
above, btw):
1) Reduce price.
2) Make better music.
3) Provide extra content – videos, lyrics, photos, discount vouchers etc etc
4) Improve accessibility of content (admittedly not as applicable to music as
it is to film, but the 5 minutes of studio flashes and “don’t be a pirate”
waffle at the start of every DVD I own really makes me wish I’d just
downloaded the thing to start with).
5) Increase turnaround of live-show recordings
6) Scrap ALL forms of region control
7) Release first, then play it out – as soon as something’s playing, I should
be able to buy the thing…this “release date” notion is old-skool..I don’t
want to have to *wait* for content.
I thought of these without even thinking or breaking a sweat – why the music
industry hasn’t been able to figure it out in the last 40 years is quite
beyond me.
I say above “If artists want to increase music sales”, because I’m not
convinced that’s a valuable use of their energy at this point. They’re better
off putting more thought and energy into live shows, sponsorship deals and
repeated weddings that they can sell as exclusives to tabloid magazines.
Artists should view music as “advertisments” for the rest of their “products”.
If they have nothing additional to offer, they’re doomed. One trick ponies are
going extinct. But that’s no bad thing for the consumer.
September 23, 2009 10:33 AM
Alex said…
Lilly is right, people should show respect. It degrades your own argument if
you attack the individual you are debating. That said, I’m all for free music.
September 23, 2009 1:51 PM
wideawakewesley said…
Lily,
How would you feel if your phone company accused you of doing something
illegal with your mobile phone. Then without actually proving you were doing
anything they prevented you from ever making a phone call again from any phone
you ever owned without obtaining evidence and going through a court of law?
I bet that would seriously impact your life wouldn’t it?
Now consider giving that kind of power to private companies (ie. ISPs).
Initially they’ll be asked to look for specific things like music, this seems
quite tame. The public will probably support it, but over time you can be damn
sure Government will use that precedent to push for further monitoring. Maybe
to look at pictures or e-mails or instant messages. Maybe people would be
accused of being paedophiles in the exact same way they can be accused of
being illegal downloaders.
Civil liberties exist for a reason. They have been fought for and many people
have died to preserve them.
I fully support every musicians desire to earn a living from the creation of
music, but I’m sorry to say civil liberties are VASTLY more important than
that. They are something worth dying for, this is just something worth
fighting for. You need to find a different solution to music distribution,
rather than look at more punitive measures to punish people who obtain music
from illegal sources.
Also, illegal music distribution is just that, illegal distribution, at no
point did anyone steal anything. It’s like taking a photocopier into
Waterstones and copying a book, then giving away copies. The original source
hasn’t been stolen, but it has been duplicated and distributed illegally.
September 23, 2009 3:37 PM
fredroth01 said…
Lefsetz was out of line with his personal attacks on Lily Allen’s beauty and
talent. I do agree with him however that Ms. Allen did in fact steal and
fileshare other artists’ music by distributing mix tapes to promote her own
career. I also believe that more than 99 percent of all file shares would
never have resulted in sales. Buyers of music have to be discerning and
selective whereas downloaders do not. Filesharing has replaced listening to
the radio and has exposed more artists to a bigger audience.
September 23, 2009 5:44 PM
Jj22 said…
By the way it is common web culture to make links to original sources
clickable.
September 23, 2009 6:28 PM
Out Of Print said…
It is ok to copy an article someone took the time to write but not ok to steal
music? pot/kettle
September 23, 2009 10:48 PM
Post a Comment
Newer Post Older Post Home
Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom) Followers
Blog Archive
▼ 2009 (30)
▼ September (30)
NME link
Yo, some questions answered, i hope.
The opposition-Link
Paddy McAloon – Prefrab Sprout
Stephen Street
Alesha Dixon
Scarlet Harlots
Joe, Performance
James Allan , GLASVEGAS
Sirens
Mark Ronson
THE FUTUREHEADS
50 CENT POST
tom chaplin , keane
Not After a Fight
PRESS COVERAGE
Dappy , N-Dubz
Skint & Demoralised Blog
Guy Chambers
Patrick Wolf Blog
Natasha Khan
Taio Cruz
50 Cent
Gary Kemp
Gary Barlow e-mailed me back
letter to all artists
Tinchy Stryder
Matt Bellamy from Muse
Tim Rice Oxley from Keane
James Blunts Letter
About Me
lily rose allen
View my complete profile
February 23rd, 2010 at 6:29 pm
I donated. I gave Jon a bit of money that I, on my income, can ill afford because I believe in him, I believe in the cause that he promotes, and I believe that our voices should be heard, need to be heard. I believe that Jon’s situation merited my support.
I find myself disgusted by BB’s words on the subject. Specifically him suggesting that by helping Jon out a little, I am his ‘customer’. After years of reading p2pnet.net on and off I think of Jon, who has spoken to me frankly, openly, and without duplicity as more of a friend and ally than as an artist or content producer. I have never met Jon, and often post on here, when I comment, under several different names from varying locations and IP addresses. I ask for no recognition in return for donating, and don’t expect any. To me the reason to give Jon money is to help keep p2pnet.net going, to keep Jon writing, to help ensure his voice is heard, that all our voices are heard.
To see an ‘artist’ degrade that experience, that feeling in such a shameless and egregious way disturbs me, but sadly does not surprise me.
Jon, Dredd, Crosby, you are appreciated. You are, no, we are making a difference to the world, and the more we push the greater the difference.
Keep pushing. Keep writing. Keep talking.
February 23rd, 2010 at 7:10 pm
900 bucks might seem a pittance to some ‘featured’ people, but for me that’s a mortgage payment and
2 minor utility bills I wouldn’t have to worry about, and that’s no small thing. I am sure I’m not alone in
that. Some may throw that kind of money around for lunch, but they’re the ‘featured’ minority, not the majority.
February 23rd, 2010 at 11:44 pm
hmm,
I didn’t see an inordinate amount of horrendous abuse.
I saw some pretty good questions though.
I wonder if anyone in the FAC actually saw any of that, or if they just took someones word for it.
I hope that’s making the rounds. The Hypocrisy of the FAC is outlined even more when one sees
what actually went down. If that’s an example of ‘horribly cruel and insulting attacks, then they better
never visit FARK.COM. heir poor widdle heads would asplode . BB, did you even bother to read that yourself ?
February 24th, 2010 at 3:09 am
Well, well…
)
Nomen est omen
(even the romans knew that
February 24th, 2010 at 6:03 am
I’m not sure about this at all. Just because someone posts under a different nick than their real name and holds an opposing viewpoint to others in a discussion, regardless of who they really are, that does not make them a troll.
If anyone with a view that doesn’t fit here is going to be dismissed as a troll the discussion will get nowhere. I like the debate here, lets not kill it
By the way, what method was used to confirm this guy’s identity? It sounds like registration information given to this site in confidence was used to ‘out’ him. Tell us it aint so Jon? :/
February 24th, 2010 at 8:51 am
@ Fedak:
“what method was used to confirm ” – No method as such. Please re-read the post.
Meanwhile, it’d probably be a good idea for you to thoroughly familiarise yourself with Sam’s posts. Use the search box on the top left.
Cheers!
February 24th, 2010 at 11:39 am
” By the way, what method was used to confirm this guy’s identity? It sounds like registration information given to this site in confidence was used to ‘out’ him. Tell us it aint so Jon? :/ ”
I’ve been a regular reader here since P2Pnet began. I’ve been around for every single SAM episode. I’ve always been the kind of person to wonder why someone who is educated and informed could ever possibly back, and even relish the fact of soccer moms and kids being sued for amounts of cash they wold never be able to earn in 3 lifetimes. What kind of person thinks like that ? I wanted to know who that person was, so I could understand there motives. Sam posted a LOT of clues to his personal identity. Places he was going to, events, places he did work at, mentioning working on major artists videos, offices near Ray Beckerman ,etc.
I took all of these clues from his posts, and posts at other sites ( as mentioned above, his attack style is easily recognizable, as is yours ), and after about 18 months of checking,rechecking, cross referencing, his name and company tied in as the only common thread. this was a factor of 80% certainty, well before the FAC was formed. So that satisfied my curiosity, I knew who he was and his true motives. I said nothing to anyone about his ID. The search was for my own personal gratification, done without benefit of any e-mail address. Sam’s arrogance was the only tool I needed.
A couple of days ago, once again in an effort to understand the enemy, I went hunting for a full FAC list. A did not expect to find the name of the person I had ID’d a half a year ago as SAM as part of a focus group that created the FAC. At that time, I shared all of my findings to Jon, you dumbass. Every month or so you post crap like this, desperately trying to discredit P2Pnet, trying to foster the usual ‘fear and paranoia’. My search was completely independent and unknown to Jon, and, as I said, without benefit of any knowledge other than what the ‘CockRoach’ posted voluntarily. Though searching for this particular ‘roach’ was more timely than most identity hunts I have done, it was far more satisfying and exposed the FAC for what it really is .. a Focus group creating marketing tool. The facts were important enough to bring to Jon.
BTW .. KMA
February 24th, 2010 at 1:17 pm
I have been a little occupied lately with one thing or another, trying to find alternate sources of income, homeschooling, and even some gardening, but Jon, obviously, has mentioned the burgeoning debate about how his experiences over the last month and a half with p2pnet are somehow supposed to illustrate the need for copyright of artists’ works. However, equating Jon’s problems with those of a struggling musician is not a straightforward thing because the world of commercial music and that of the written word are, in some ways, fundamentally different.
Ultimately, I think all of us in the Western world view the written word as ‘free’, not financially, but politicallly.
Some of us are old enough to remember buying a daily newspaper but we also always knew we could get almost anything in the local public library for free. And, because with the ‘written word’ the important thing is the message, at any point in the history of printing, somebody could produce a cheap little pamphlet – if the information in it was interesting, the quality of the paper or the ink was hardly important.
In the world of music, the quality of the medium is as important as the quality of the message, so from the start, the early 1900’s, when technological advances allowed for the recording and reproduction of music to become viable on a large scale, the industry that grew around those activities has been dominated by specialists and the cost of entry has allowed monopolies to form.
Unfortunately, nobody thought to charge the public libraries with the task of acquiring music recordings on a large scale from the start. What a missed opportunity for building a public domain for music!
To get back to Jon’s situation, in print (including the Internet), small and large publishers have been able to make a living by catering to given markets. Jon was able to make a living at doing only p2pnet while there were businesses out there who benefitted from advertising on, or otherwise financially supporting, the site. The current financial crisis has changed that picture and Jon is now getting income from readers who value p2pnet enough to pay for the content. It is missing the point entirely to focus on the fact that those revenues are not sufficient to pay Jon’s rent. And let’s acknowledge those people who are demonstrating, to the tune of $918, that patronage does work.
Meanwhile, as an outsider, the thing I wonder about when I think of the current debacle in the world of music is: to what degree do musicians really need all of the specialists whose fees inevitably raise the cost of producing a recording?
Jon is an amateur musician and with not a great deal of financial investment involved, he has acquired the ability to record his compositions at home. So why aren’t more musicians embracing the technical advances which now give them the ability to be their own recording studios? Also, as most musicians are aware, nothing in the past has equaled the opportunities afforded by the Internet for publicizing oneself. You’d think that in a way the world is their oyster.
From an economic point of view, the current music industry is a rigged marketplace; it’s an anachronism of the past. And if you dig even a little into the issue of recording rights, you will come across a musician or ten who feel like they have been chewed up and spit out by a soulless machine. Let’s try a different business model.
Finally, on the analogy of Jon’s situation to that of musicians, Jon has decided to keep doing p2pnet, despite the fact it is not covering the rent, because he really believes in what he is doing.
We are both trying to make money in other ways to make up for the shortfall. If a musician really loves doing their music, in a brave new world where there is no RIAA, they may have to make the same kind of choices Jon is making.
You decide what you want from life and you do your best to make it happen.
February 24th, 2010 at 4:05 pm
Some here are wondering how Dreddsnik made a connection to Gregory A. Roach with nothing of substance to go on. I find that curious, too. The fact is Jon Newton has had an email address with my last name and my three initials since my very first post here as a very early form of respect to him, expressly so he could know who I am if he wanted to. At the least he could see for himself I’ve always run my own shop and have no Mafiaa industry affiliations. When you give a man your name and location, it’s clear you aren’t hiding from him. But also early on, Jon published a posters physical threats against me and my family, irresponsibly I thought, and so there’s been good reason to remain Sam I Am.
(That name is fair use, by the way, Jon’s allegation of potential infringement is just smarmy pettiness. Only Jon Newton might see no difference between using “Sam I Am” as a posting nick and unlawfully copying and distributing the collected works of Theodor Geisel.)
Anyway, after a long and successful run as a Manhattan based designer/producer of special event all over the world, (music, fashion, industrial show) I’ve been looking for whatever might be next and reviewing the pirate sites for years.
In my spare time I’ve been developing a carefully organized and edited brief of pirate related information and insight so valuable to digital industry that I’ve successfully made the transition to digital monetization consultant here and in Europe these past 4 years. At the moment I’m consulting with digital publishing here in New York, but Dredds case is far less compelling.
Knowing “Sam I Am” attended some event (along with thousands of others) or worked on music video (we didn’t, actually) or has offices near Beckerman (a claim about 2 million others could also make) could never lead to making that connection without that email address. I leave it to the readers to decide for themselves what really happened but only Jon had that address here and Dredd, buddy, thou doth protest (way) too much. lol Perhaps you’ll publish step-by-step the path that led from Sam I Am to Gregory A. Roach with all the links and the evidence you unearthed. I don’t think it actually exists. Certainly, we’d all be fascinated to follow the links.
As for the FAC connection, I was working in London in early February 2009 after a correspondence with David Lammy’s office, and also orchestrating a live event there that featured a handful of bands. I’ve worked in support of musicians and touring for decades. The bands and I hit it off, we went out later as a group to eat and they told me about this burgeoning “coalition of recording artists”. I was intrigued and wanted to know more, so a group invited me to a big bash the following weekend out east on Bow Road where I met and spoke with dozens of artists upset about piracy and very encouraged about this development. When the FAC formed and the Air Statement launched that September, I was aware and thus, third to post in support of their agenda. I still work hard to support it. You can read that support on the FAC homepage under “The Air Statement.”
Liz posted “You decide what you want from life and you do your best to make it happen.” but that’s not true at all; in fact most in the final analysis do not ever do their best. Some do. Some build dreams into businesses in support of the artist and earn significant sums while doing it. Others prefer grousing at the keyboard about how life is so unfair. A few even try begging. We all know who we are here.
Billy certainly figured it out.
February 25th, 2010 at 6:37 am
@ Sam I Am
I don’t know if you mean yourself when you say “Some build dreams into businesses in support of the artist and earn significant sums while doing it”. If so, congratulations. However, some of us have dreams of things beyond ‘earning significant sums’.
On a related topic, I forgot to say in my previous post that over the last year and half I have read some really intelligent and inspiring comments both on p2pnet and on a2f2a from musicians who are embracing the future with enthusiasm and verve, living and working outside of the stifling confines of the music establishment. In contrast, “grousing at the keyboard about how life is so unfair” perfectly describes what certain other musicians do. I like that image Sam I Am, thank you.
February 25th, 2010 at 10:22 pm
Henry.
There’s no embellishment when you are actually there in the room, Henry. I was there. 80% of life is simply showing up, remember?
I got out from behind this keyboard, got on a plane, produced that show in London and met with the musicians themselves: first the pub crawl, then that big Bow Road meeting the following weekend. These folks were excited about the recording artists coalition that was forming because they had had enough and were standing up for their rights, the same rights as anyone else who brings a product to market. Read the FAC charter.
“So we will campaign for laws, regulations, business practices and policies that protect artists’ rights.
We will stand up for all artists by engaging with government, music and technology companies, and collection societies. We will argue for fair play and will expose unfair practices.”
I could not agree more.
I watched their presentations that night and listened to how fed up they are with being ripped off by people who call themselves “fans”. I understand their frustration and appreciate their hopes that government will step in where the ethics of such “fans” have failed. I heard stories first-hand of the damage they still suffer to piracy of their goods and personally witnessed their sense of injustice. You might try it sometime, Henry, getting out now and then and actually learning from a musician, I mean.
Luck is often the by-product of careful preparation and unexpected opportunity, and I realize I was very lucky to be there at a nascent moment entirely by coincidence. For a new digital consultant building an entirely new revenue stream, that’s resumé material. You may have a nasty attitude and a very unpleasant mouth on you, Henry, but you have no resumé at all.
Liz.
Thank you for your reply, Liz. All I ever wanted to do was put on a show. Even as a little kid I knew what I wanted to do, so I came to New York and I did it. Nobody enters the dream of show business for the money, Liz, it’s either in your heart or it’s not. We all worked for years off Broadway for subway tokens, because that’s what we were paid back then.
Yes, I built a thriving design/event business and I’ve done okay, but that’s available to anyone with talent and bottomless drive and I really love watching young people manifest this ethic every working day. I don’t appreciate Jon’s encouragement of unlawful behavior, frankly, but I’ve always given Jon his due. Jon Newton has been at the forefront of this issue for almost 8 years. He’s forgotten more about this than most so-called “experts” even know and Alexa makes clear he has an audience. This is not only about music, Liz. Digital industry in general is desperate to purchase thoughtful insight into the entitlement-mentality of people who anonymously take merchandise without paying for it.
We all follow our dreams, Liz, but if you are somehow suggesting that earning good money for doing what you love is somehow less noble than not earning while doing it, I don’t agree. Mediocre talent gathers mediocre compensation and the best have always been paid very well and that’s not going to change anytime soon. Jon could cut consulting deals across the board and be on that plane tomorrow and have meaningful impact on this issue while setting your financial worries aside for life but he apparently chooses not to. We agree that the recording industry is bullshit and I’ve always been with the artist and never with the industry. I’m painted as an industry guy here because of the narrow mentality; it’s inconceivable to P2Pnet readers that you can stand with the artist, respect the value of a legal system and not be paid by the RIAA to feel that way. It’s not the executives who are hurting. Piracy has pulled the financial rug out from under hundreds of thousands of families just like yours around the world while the pirates take their pilfered products and the families lose their homes. The whole thing is unlawful and obscene, and artistry in support of musicians has been a defining part of my life. I’m working hard daily to do something about it.
a2f2a
For months I told anyone who would listen about “this great new website, a2f2a”, especially over the holidays when we hit all those label and legal parties here in New York City. But the mission statement proved a lie with the posters demanding they would NOT pay for copies because they didn’t HAVE to anymore, and they weren’t GOING TO because ‘the market for copies has ENDED” with a bottom line challenge to government (!) “you can’t stop us.” And for months this tried to pass for intelligent debate.
Recording artists sell copies every day and deserve to be paid every single time money is made. When you invite someone to a discussion table don’t offer them an electric chair to sit in and maybe then they’ll come. The content on a2f2a to date is painfully ignorant of musicians lives and their professional careers, almost willfully so. It’s been condescending beyond comprehension to people of international achievement and so openly spiteful it’s kept every other interested, professional musician far, far away.
Nice job.
Dreddsnik
You boast to have already done the detective work that leads from Sam I Am to Gregory A. Roach without my name in that email address. Fair enough. I say evidence it. With copy and paste your detective work should already be up here so everyone can follow it—link by link, proving Jon didn’t reveal my email. So let’s see it.
February 25th, 2010 at 10:40 pm
@ Roach:
“Fair enough. I say evidence it. With copy and paste your detective work should already be up here so everyone can follow it—link by link, proving Jon didn’t reveal my email.”
I’ve already promised you that didn’t happen. So now you’re implying I’m a liar. It’s interesting how some people try to paint others in their own colours.
“Nobody enters the dream of show business for the money … ”
Riiiiight.
“Jon could cut consulting deals across the board and be on that plane tomorrow and have meaningful impact on this issue while setting your financial worries aside for life but he apparently chooses not to.”
I’m up for that. Any offers, anyone?
Cheers!
February 25th, 2010 at 11:18 pm
Remember, there’s absolutely no point in engaging. It’s exactly what is desired. So don’t feed it. Let it die on its own.