10 million songs file-shared as you read this!
p2pnet view Music | P2P:- 
So says Eddie Schwartz, president of the Songwriters Association of Canada in The Mark.
But it’s not exactly news, he says.
And it’s all down to the “freest, greenest, largest global distribution system for music of all kinds that has ever been invented in the history of the world” he states, going on >>>
It’s been going on 24 hours a day, seven days a week, 365 days a year for most of the last 10 years. Ten million songs at any given moment are being shared.
Despite years of lawsuits and other repressive measures against “pirates” to force them to stop sharing, there is no end in sight.
So while iTunes may sell a billion or so tunes this year, something like 40 billion songs will find their way across Limewire, Transmission networks, as well as be emailed, instant messaged, and shared using other easily available technologies. Over 95 per cent of the music people acquire over the internet gets to them by way of file sharing; a ratio of 40 to one “illegal” file shares over “legal” downloads.
And the folks who write, perform, and produce songs for a living won’t receive a red cent for all that wonderful music being enjoyed by so many millions of people.
As one of those creators of music, what do I think of all this? It’s almost all good, and with one small condition that I will get to in a moment, it certainly should be a perfectly legal activity.
First of all, those of us who actually write and perform and produce the music don’t call people who share music “pirates” or “criminals.” We call them our “audience” and our “fans.”
And we like file sharing. Here’s why:
Music file sharing is the freest, greenest, largest global distribution system for music of all kinds that has ever been invented in the history of the world. Nothing has ever delivered more music to more people in a more efficient and environmentally friendly manner.
Also, it’s a completely open system. Any artist can share their work and thereby offer it to the world. For the aspiring artist and songwriter it is a free, worldwide distribution system. No gatekeepers required.
For the music fan, what’s not to like about being able to access the world’s entire repertoire of music, something approaching 100 million unique songs? Every song you can think of, and many millions you can’t, are available for download. By contrast, iTunes offers fewer than 10 million songs.
In addition, music-sharing networks are the greatest living repository of music of all kinds in the history of the world. Record labels go bankrupt, warehouses full of tapes burn down, master recordings are thrown away or just fall apart through neglect and age. But the fans preserve and share the music they love. And so it survives for new generations to share and enjoy.
So, what’s missing?
A few dollars a month.
A license fee of as little as $4 or $5 could be bundled into monthly internet access fees. People who don’t music file share could opt out. The money would go into a pool and a pro rata distribution made to the artists, songwriters, and rights holders whose songs are being shared. Canada’s world-respected performance rights society, SOCAN, has been licensing broadcasters and making distributions using similar methodology for decades and could easily handle this new source of desperately needed revenue for creators.
If every Canadian household that houses music sharers paid that small license fee, something wonderful would happen: music creators could once again make a living.
And that’s the problem now. The vast majority of songwriters and artists are not rock stars and sadly don’t make anything remotely close to a living. This is particularly true of the new generation of music creators coming up. Because CD sales have fallen off a cliff, record labels have no money to sign and develop new artists.
“By licensing music file sharing, the collapse of the music industry would give way to a musical renaissance, and artists and songwriters could spend their days writing and producing more great Canadian music to share with the world”, adds Schwartz in The Mark.”
(Cheers, Jordan)
..… and identi.ca
First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win ~ Mahatma Gandhi
The Mark – Legalize File Sharing, April 15, 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. Click here to learn what technologies might help you bypass censorship in your area.
April 17th, 2010 at 10:53 am
Just what the bloody blue blazes is this drongo talking about?! It’s a proven fact that those of us who file share music BUY more music than those that don’t, and by sharing music we open the door to others who may have never heard of the artist who is singing. This clown hasn’t just been drinking the corporate kool-aid he’s been shooting it intravenously as well. SOCAN is one of those organizations that should be outlawed for plain stupidity and greed. Does anyone remember how they wanted a performance license for ring tones, I know the ASCAP in the States wanted it as well, but these morons have gotten B.C. to put a busker tax on the players who come to perform for free each year.
Eddie Schwartz is simply parroting the party line of the CRIA and others of that ilk by blaming the fans for the Kartels lack of paying their artists the royalties which is owed them. Saying that every Canadian household that shares music should pay an Internet license fee to his group would not solve a bloody thing. The only way for this mess to get corrected and be fair to the artists is for the Kartels to pay them what is owed as I mentioned earlier. He’s right about the net being the greatest repository of music on Earth, which is why the Kartels are fighting like hell to control the net so they and they alone can once again control the flow and type of music we hear.
The best thing for all the artists and fans around the world who love their music, would be for the Kartels and their cronies, ASCAP, SAC, and all the others who claim to “represent” the best interests of the artists to simply curl up in a corner somewhere, die, turn to dust and blow away as they are nothing more than dinosaurs in a digital age.
April 17th, 2010 at 10:59 am
I would bet money he’s a FAC member.
Unfortunately, the membership of the FAC is apparently a very closely guarded secret.
I wonder why ?
April 17th, 2010 at 11:12 am
Almost everything he said made sense, until I got to the line that says “So, what’s missing?”
Then, he starts to parrot the usual RIAA/MPAA party-line about how file-sharers should pay for all their supposed “losses”. He completely ignores the mounting evidence that shows that file-sharers actually spend MORE on music that others, or that current US government research has stated that it cannot prove file-sharing causes any revenue loss to the “creative industries”.
As Logan says above, this guy is clearly main-lining the kool-aid.
Also – “People who don’t music file share could opt out.”… I’m sure we’d all claim that, and request that they prove otherwise…
April 17th, 2010 at 12:49 pm
David said:
“Also – “People who don’t music file share could opt out.”… I’m sure we’d all claim that, and request that they prove otherwise…”
No problem Dave!
Deep Packet Inspection here it comes!
Maybe this “musician”-guy should ask for a consulting job with those DPI Equipment manufacturers or those freedom haters that actually want to look inside every thing you do without a warrant and the stuff that made the freedom the freedom that it was once before the corporations got the power they have today
April 17th, 2010 at 1:06 pm
“So, what’s missing?… A license fee… bundled into monthly internet access fees.”
…And THERE it is!
[Rolls eyes]
You could pretty much smell this statement coming right from the start of the post.
The sad part is, he’s just one of the many artists and songwriters who believe a blanket levy or license would solve everyone’s problems, while having absolutely no idea…
1) how such fees would be collected,
2) who would end up controlling the extra revenue,
3) why artists or songwriters wouldn’t see any of this new revenue,
4) how patently unfair it is to charge “everyone”, or
5) how impossible an “opt-out” would be for anyone.
Let’s not forget that “music” is only one kind of “intellectual property” being shared. This is where artists and others continue to demonstrate a bizarre, perverse sense of entitlement. I’m sure the movie and software industries, and others, would love to see a similar tax in their honour as well.
If we were to accept another $5 tacked on to our internet bill for each of these interested groups, I shudder to think what the price of internet access would end up being. These people are obviously from another planet.
As I’ve said before, Eddie, you lost me at “license fee”.
April 17th, 2010 at 2:41 pm
This may sound a bit foolish, but how many of those songs were actually worth the bandwidth it took to download them? Some of what is passed off as modern music makes the racket made by raccoons fighting in my yard at seem night downright pleasant.
April 17th, 2010 at 10:07 pm
I avoid “licensed” music systems.
April 18th, 2010 at 9:09 pm
If they did ever ram this through, and got the licensing fees that they want, they would undoubtedly then go and do something incredibly stupid, like let one of the existing licensing agencies run it, or even worse, the RIAA, in which case they would be just as bad off as they are now. So, even if you buy all their arguments, we are still doing them a favor by apposing it.
April 19th, 2010 at 11:47 pm
“…like let one of the existing licensing agencies run it, or even worse, the RIAA…”
This is the part people dont’ understand!
If such a fee were ever installed, it would automatically HAVE TO be approved and controlled by the RIAA in the first place. The RIAA would insist on this, and in turn, would want it funneled through one of their agencies. From there, it would simply become more “black box” money the artists and creators would never see or even be able to prove, quantify, or contest.