Catflap to Sheryl Crow
p2pnet.net News:- Early last month, I wrote an Op-Ed in the form of an open letter to Sheryl Crow about her recent uninformed, lie-riddled RIAA/RAC (Recording Artist`s Coalition) spin statement on MGM v Grokster, downloadable as a .pdf here.
Among her party line allegations were claims that filesharing so-called copyright-protected music was killing the music business and eliminating thousands of jobs in the artistic and manufacturing sectors of the industry:
“But, if nobody pays for it, how do the musicians, singers, arrangers, engineers, producers and songwriters get paid? How about the people who create the CD and DVD artwork and photography? What about the people who work in the plants that manufacture the CDs and DVDs or the people who work in music stores. Their livelihoods depend on people paying for the music that is created. If these people are not paid, how do they pay their rent and the utility bills? How can they afford transportation or groceries? The highly visible ’stars’ who we hear on the radio and see on TV represent less than 5% of the music world. The rest of that world consists of ordinary people who work hard to support themselves and their families and who often struggle just to make ends meet. The musicians, the singers and songwriters among them, are all dreaming of that big break, but few of them will get it.”
We strongly suspect these words were written by RIAA lawyers rather than Crow herself because she clearly has no idea what file-sharing means or how it works. But her main concern, really, still seems to be about her and the “less than 5% of the music world” that actually makes money, including Crow. This was made abundantly clear to me personally and professionally.
After my piece was published on p2pnet and picked up by several news sites and many, many p2p message boards, I was constantly being asked if Crow had read and/or responded to it, or if I`d been in contact with her at all.
As far as I know, she hadn`t read it, and still hasn`t read it and in fact, I hadn’t really expected her to reply and wasn`t even thinking of trying to get a response until people started asking me for one.
So, two weeks ago I contacted Ms Crow`s attorney in Los Angeles to request an interview with Sheryl. Her lawyer, Mr X (for now), emailed me and asked me to submit all enquiries and future emails to him.
I immediately sent him a summary of the topics I wanted to discuss and said I’d forward a formal list of specific questions.
And I did impress upon him the immediate need for an open discussion between the RIAA`s and RAC`s highest-profiled opponent of filesharing, and her filesharing fans and foes. Because much of the future of p2p is now in the hands of the courts and lawmakers in several countries, there could be no better time to finally have the stars listen to the customers.
That was two weeks ago and I haven`t received so much as an email read receipt from Mr X.
According to Billboard www.billboard.com and Sheryl Crow`s web site (which, it says, she never visits), she’s not touring at the moment and has no tour dates or events scheduled for any time in the future.
The only recent news posted is a long, drawn-out, soapy tear-jerker of an obituary for her dog.
The only conclusion I can draw is Sheryl Crow hates her fans whether they`re filesharers or not and doesn’t want to address the real issues surrounding P2P.
It`s either that, or she`s still grieving for her dog and hasn`t been strong enough to read her emails.
Well, Sheryl, I won`t give you the benefit of the doubt. Sorry to hear about your dog, but that`s life and life goes on. There are more important things to worry about and take care of.
Sure, filesharing isn`t the most important issue of the day. We know that. But it`s the issue that we`re here to discuss, and obviously one that you feel strongly about so strongly that you even addressed the US Congress on it and the consequences are starting to be felt now.
You`ve had two weeks to acknowledge my request for an interview. Where R U?
Your apparent refusal to engage in an open discussion with filesharers only serves to alienate and insult the customers who pay you and listen to your music. It`s clear that you don`t care about the fans. You don`t care that innocent people are being illegally terrorized into submission by the RIAA. You don`t care that whole families and communities are being penalized by the RIAA`s greed.
You just don`t care, do you?
And you have no idea what it`s like to be part of the wonderful, helpful filesharing community at large. Working stiffs, students, mothers, fathers, children, dead grandmothers, bill-payers and those you purport to represent in the music world all helping and informing each other for free – are all among the hundreds of thousands of file-sharers around the world. And yes, believe it or not, some of them are even your fans.
You continue to try to brainwash youngsters with advertisements and in-school programs, making them believe they`re criminals and pirates for participating in lawful activities which hurt no-one.
You and the RIAA even go as far as urging children to inform on their friends and parents for using filesharing programs.
You continue to waste tax-payer money by filing frivolous lawsuits against innocent people around the world, even when you have no proof of a crime nor jurisdiction in other countries.
Meanwhile, the indies and unsigned musicians who live in the shadow of the successful “less than 5% of the music world” aren’t being heard because your cartel is only interested in producing crappy remixes and Best of Sheryl Crow albums.
File-sharers are regular people. They’re not pirates or thieves and they’re not doing anything illegal. And they have a voice that deserves to be heard by the industry that labels them hardened criminals.
Do you hope we`ll go away if you just ignore us? Sorry, but that`s not gonna happen.
Sheryl, it`s been two whole weeks since I emailed you.
So where’s your response?
catflap — p2pnet
=============
Something you think we should know? tips[at]p2pnet.net
May 11th, 2005 at 10:14 pm
You tell em Catflap , another great piece .
bignik
May 11th, 2005 at 11:18 pm
in case anyone reading this thinks this is just some rant made by an anonymous wiseguy/wisegal, think again.
i did identify myself with my real name and location to Mr. X and invited him to verify with jon that i am who i say i am.
i am very serious in having this discussion with sheryl, if only she’d reply.
of course, “catflap” is just my online screen name that i’ve used for years, and i wouldn’t disrespect either Mr. X or Ms. Crow by assuming they should correspond to “catflap” without knowing who i really am.
May 12th, 2005 at 1:26 am
The claims of the recording industry that they are “just working for the artists” is pretty obviously false. If this were true, and the artists were in control, then there would be more dialog between artists and fans without lawyers and other blocking intermediaries.
I sent an open letter to Sarah McLachlan about the World on Fire and the future of music, and like you received no reply.
http://www.digital-copyright.ca/node/view/755
I tried to get feedback from Blue Rodeo band member Jim Cuddy when he was parroting CRIA lies, but hit a roadblock with the fan BBS with fans who weren’t even informed on Mr. Cuddy’s allegiances.
http://discussions.bluerodeo.com/eve/ubb.x/a/tpc/f/3656025682/m/1951060501
The only musicians I have spoken to at length about these issues agree with what most of us already know — that non-commercial P2P music sharing is not only not harmful to the artists, but is free advertising. While I wish people would stop sharing RIAA owned music, it is precisely because I know it is helping the RIAA that I say that. There are so many modern musicians that deserve our support that are skipping the pre-Internet intermediaries, and paving the way for the future of music.
http://forum.fadingways.com
May 12th, 2005 at 2:03 am
i’ve also sent the url to this page to Mr. X, along with a second request for a reply.
so for anyone who’s wondering, i haven’t given up. this article is not meant to be the end of the road.
May 12th, 2005 at 4:37 am
I sent an e-mail too.
May 12th, 2005 at 4:54 am
How? I want to send one as well, listen up Mr.X we be knockin’
May 12th, 2005 at 12:53 pm
Irregardless if file sharing is legal, and irregardless of the “free advertising” premise of file sharing, it’s still illegal to make copies of copyrighted works in the USA, and give, rent, sell, etc. them away. Check copyright law sometime.
The fact seems to be is that both sides think filesharing=music/video/etc.
It doesn’t.
Until everyone owns up to what the issues actually are, and there are a number of them on both sides, this is going to go nowhere. Joe Consumer is going to get sued, and Joe Recordcompany is going to whine and sue.
Oh well. I’m proud to say, that other than a few local radio station charity CDs, I hav not purchased anything put out by the RIAA in almost 3 years. I don’t download it, I don’t listen to it, I don’t see it.
Maybe if a few more would do this, it would break the crap cycle the studios seem to be stuck in.
May 12th, 2005 at 1:40 pm
irregardless:
Main Entry: ir·re·gard·less
Pronunciation: “ir-i-’gärd-l&s
Function: adverb
Etymology: probably blend of irrespective and regardless
nonstandard : REGARDLESS
usage Irregardless originated in dialectal American speech in the early 20th century. Its fairly widespread use in speech called it to the attention of usage commentators as early as 1927. The most frequently repeated remark about it is that “there is no such word.” There is such a word, however. It is still used primarily in speech, although it can be found from time to time in edited prose. Its reputation has not risen over the years, and it is still a long way from general acceptance.
Use regardless instead.
May 12th, 2005 at 2:46 pm
So sorry that Sheryl doesn’t have time to respond to every self-important little dweeb like you…
Maybe she has better things to do… like creating music instead of stealing it!
Crawl back into your little computer cubby hole and shut up and let the big people work….
May 12th, 2005 at 4:12 pm
i don’t like always having to explain myself – and i rarely do online because there are already too many misconceptions of what anyone writes. so read it, enjoy it, hate it. i don’t care. and i don’t apologise for my opinion because an opinion cannot be disputed.
but anyway, for those who don’t like my writing style – don’t read it. i don’t care. i’d rather you didn’t.
make no mistake – i wrote several very, very nice professional and respectful letters to Mr. X – the first was when i was trying to find ms. crow’s reps, the 2nd when Mr. X replied the first time, and the last one yesterday after this article was posted.
since sheryl is currently the most-outspoken and high-profile (famous) RIAA employee speaking on the p2p issues, it makes sense to try and contact her and have her discuss things.
but since i – and all other filesharers – are being ignored by her and her reps, the most i can do at this time is try and get her attention again in any way possible.
i’ve been nice. i’ve been “nasty”, some say. and i can be nice again. and i will. if only she’d reply, as Mr. X suggested she would.
May 12th, 2005 at 5:17 pm
**So sorry that Sheryl doesn’t have time to respond to every self-important little dweeb like you… **
Since you seem to lack an intelligent answer to the question, you seem to prefer name caling. That is typical of a troll.
**Maybe she has better things to do… like creating music instead of stealing it! ** You call her stuff “music?” Catflap never said that he went into the music store and stole CD’s Copying and sharing is not stealing any more than buying a grape vine from a nursery and then causing a part of this vine to be rooted and then giving away this reproduction to another.
**Crawl back into your little computer cubby hole and shut up and let the big people work….** So you want people like Catflap to go hide somewhere and stop complaining so that the so called “Big People” can work? Work at what? Infringing on the rights of everyone else?
Copyright and patent laws were originally created to reward people who created works that benefited society. What benefit does the smut from Hollywood provide to the people who use it? It looks like much of it spreads the ideas of immorality. If anything, most of what Hollywood unleashes on the population contribute to the ills of society. Maybe Hollywood should PAY US for listening and watching their crap.
May 12th, 2005 at 5:21 pm
making sure to share all her works now just because of that hahahaha
)
May 13th, 2005 at 11:26 am
I have bought *every one* of Cheryl Crow’s CD’s so far.
This weekend I’m taking the CD’s to the charity shop and I’m never buying another one again.
This ill-informed and misleading statement is a disgrace. Apart from the misrepresentations on the economics of filesharing, it is full of ridiculous claims showing a fundamental lack of intelligence and understanding of the world.
“if nobody pays for it, [...]How about the people who create the CD and DVD artwork and photography? What about the people who work in the plants that manufacture the CDs and DVDs or the people who work in music stores. Their livelihoods depend on people paying for the music that is created. If these people are not paid, how do they pay their rent and the utility bills? How can they afford transportation or groceries?”
Sorry to disillusion you Cheryl, but last time I checked it was not my responsibility as a consumer to support the livelihoods of a of people whose jobs have become redundant. Ever hear of iTunes? Or Napster? Or Yahoo music? All of these are legal and PAID methods of getting music and they will still leave those poor people you mention, who work for the middle man (the recording industry) out of work. That’s the nature of free market economics and these things happen every time a business model comes along that replaces an old one. Some industries close. Others take their place and pick up the task of supporting the economy and workforce. It isn’t ideal but its life. Otherwise we’d be stuck in the middle ages because we wouldn’t want the poor farmers and craftsmen to be replaced by the industrial revolution.
Supporting people whose jobs are not necessary is something the old soviet system might have tried. These days when our jobs become redundant we pick ourselves up and get another job. You’d know that if you had one.
May 13th, 2005 at 2:02 pm
hey streaky, before you do that, why not copy them first and share them out?
May 13th, 2005 at 2:32 pm
Naah. Let her sue people into listening to her nonsense.
May 13th, 2005 at 7:38 pm
“The original purpose of copyright protection can be found in the U.S. Constitution, which states “To promote the progress of…useful arts by securing…to authors the exclusive right to their respective writings….”
Excuse me Ms. Crow, but aren’t you forgetting the MOST IMPORTANT WORDS of all in this sentence. Where’s the phrase “for limited times”, as it exists in the Constitution?? Don’t believe me, well look it up for yourself then:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.articlei.html#section8
Your copyrights are supposed to be FOR LIMITED TIMES. Yet our Congress has passed legislation that allows copyright holders to keep them for 75 years beyond death, or 95 years if they are works for hire. In my lifetime, I will NEVER see many copyrights created YEARS before I was even born reach the public domain, as our forefathers originally intended in the constitution. As far as I’m concerned, the “FOR LIMITED TIMES” portion of the constitution does not exist. Therefore, current copyright law is unconstitutional. Yet you conveniently forget these most important words from your quote to prove YOUR point. How disqusting is that?
Copyright law needs to be reformed to adjust for the digital age, but the FIRST thing that needs to be done is the shortening of copyright terms. Until people realize that they aren’t entitled to reap copyright benefits eternally, problems will continue to clog are courts forever, and waste our tax dollars. You are part of the problem Ms. Crow. I suggest you re-read your constitution and understand it better. Oh, what am I thinking, it’s obvious by your comments you never even bothered to read it in the first place.
May 13th, 2005 at 7:40 pm
For some reason your program dropped off part of my link. Past the entire link in your browser to land on Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution.
May 13th, 2005 at 7:47 pm
Seems we have one here looking in the mirror and calling folks dweeb. It would not hurt to put a bit of light on this subject though, would it?
A couple of years ago, Sheryl was crying in congressional testimony that the labels had stolen all her stuff. Then she is spouting the line that pirates are at the heart of her woes. Which is it? Apparently she can’t tell the difference.
Her time she spends is evidently worth the accusation or she wouldn’t be putting her two cents in. Her lack of responce speaks volumes, as if she cares enough to put in her two cents then the responce to that opinion should also interest her. That is unless she can’t support her own testimony and public opinions.
A drag around every performers financial neck is the idea they have to support a city size population of leeches, each sucking at the total amount the artist might have recieved. It is one of the reasons that major label music is so outragous expensive. Well the consumer isn’t the employment office and he shouldn’t be expected to finance a small army of of worthless contributors.
In the carefully prepared statement that was put out by Crow she conviently sidestepped a few very key parts. Like the part about the copyright being for limited time. I suspect if we were going by Crow’s viewpoint, buggy whip makers would still have a job, churning out a product no longer wanted nor needed.
As far as pirates and labels stealing stuff, I suspect Crow has her own wheelbarrow to tote in the thievery issue. Crow stole the credits and rights to one of her own songs from her own band.
As far as the troll goes, if you have to look up at Crow as a “big people” the ditch you are in must be a tremendous obstacle in the form of the Grand Canyon to rise above.
May 14th, 2005 at 1:32 am
“As far as the troll goes, if you have to look up at Crow as a “big people” the ditch you are in must be a tremendous obstacle in the form of the Grand Canyon to rise above.”
LOL! Well said!
May 16th, 2005 at 2:00 pm
JOM – PLEASE DELETE THE IDIOT SPAMMER’S MESSAGE ABOVE
you might as well delete this one, too.
May 19th, 2005 at 10:40 pm
Dude, get a life.
I like file-sharing as much as the next person, but I PAY for it. I’m happy to PAY for it. So get off your high horse and don’t assume Sheryl Crow has a minute, much less 5, to sit down with you for an interview.
Ms. Crow is not on tour and has no tour dates planned as of yet, but that doesn’t mean she’s sitting on her kiester with nothing to do. And even if that was the case, she doesn’t OWE YOU ANYTHING.
Take your file-sharing case to Congress and get a life.
June 2nd, 2005 at 6:42 pm
McDonald’s does not give a hamburgers to people and that is the same thing illegal file sharing is doing. They are not paying for people’s work. If you want to purchase work from a legal site go ahead, but everyone should be entitled to compensation for their work. I am disgusted that people think that music is public property. Some spent time and money to produce it and if you use it you should pay.