I think you need to read Crosbie’s reply again.
He actually gave you more than one concrete answer to your question, and pointed out how each “problem” could be “conceived” by different players in the scenario.

Billy’s statement (“There’s no technological solution to the problems artists face following the digitization of music”) was made in ANSWER to a bunch of issues associated with how digitizing music has changed the very landscape of how music can’t/can be marketed/sold.

It was addressing things like how copyright and “3-strikes” laws and suing customers don’t succeed in stopping file sharing, and how no “technical” measures to reinforce the movement made any difference.

What you’ve inadvertently done is pose his statement back as a question, which makes for a question that’s even broader than the ground he was trying to cover with the initial statement.

Clear as mud?

Your reply was not particularly helpful as you did not address my question directly but went off on a kind of sideways label bashing “dancing on their grave” rant.

@David

You are assuming that there being no way to stop peer-to-peer file sharing is the problem. Is it? Did you write that statement? Surely the problem is that artists aren’t getting food on their plate. That’s my experience. There’s no easy way to pay artists when using P2P file sharing even though in some circumstances people would like to. Note I’m saying easy here. Sure, people can spend a lot of time tracking down an artist and sending them a cheque. But the whole point people are using peer-to-peer file sharing in the first place is for convenience and time management. People have busy lifes!

Cheers Daniel

This means you can’t stop the signal. It means there is no technical way to stop peer-to-peer sharing and file sharing networks. Even if someone found a way to shut down the current iteration of file sharing, something else would pop up in its place whether it be encryption or direct downloads or private networks. It means that when you make anything digital, such as music, it can be traded infinitely and so cannot be controlled. The problems refer to trying to make make money with the old business model (sell plastic) when the market has changed.

The key problem artists are facing is how to enable their audience to pay them directly rather than via a label. Fortunately, that does have a technological solution.

The other problem artists (as their audiences) are facing is in how to share and build upon existing culture without having to seek permission (especially that of the labels who would otherwise obtain it for them). Unfortunately, this is a legislative problem (with a straightforward legal solution: abolition) , but can be ignored through civil disobedience, e.g. file-sharing (a technological solution).

So, really artists are looking at technological solutions to their problems, whereas labels are looking at a technological doom – the end of their business of controlling the distribution and reproduction of music.

Free distribution and reproduction of music means the artist no longer has to see 99% of their audience revenue go to the label. But then, that means the label loses 100% of their revenue.

Whether you see this as a problem depends upon whether you’re a label or signed to them, or an independent artist who doesn’t hope to be.

Interesting times.

That’s a pretty broad statement.

What is the basis for the conclusion?

I think this is a fundamental point that needs addressing.

Or are you saying “There’s no [current] technological solution to the problems artists face following the digitisation of music”?

Would you like there to be one?

I guess in order to delve deeper into this we need to know exactly what the “problems artists face” are. Do you have a list?

If our “premises” are wrong then our foundation is weak and the actions we take may be in error. So, it’s important to keep going back to the premises.

I really look forward to your answers.

Cheers Daniel

http://imagebin.ca/popup/Sp6Ke5A.html