The clock is now ticking
In the face of massive consumer [read voters] outrage and objections not only from ISPs, but also from police and intelligence services, British politicians say they’re nonetheless determined to turn the corporate entertainment Three Strikes bidniz plan into UK law.
“People who persistently download illegal content will be cut off from the net, Business Secretary Peter Mandelson has announced,” says the BBC.
The plan would have the UK government working as a taxpayer-funded Hollywood and Big Music enforcement agency with ISPs as online copyright police, acting against their own customers.
On corporate say-so, alleged file sharers would be warned twice, and then cut off from the net — and all with any kind of due process or legal protection.
Mandelson “confirmed that it would become government policy, following months of speculation,” says the story, going on >>>
Initially Ofcom will monitor whether file-sharing is going down with the disconnection policy not brought into force until at least April 2011.
The Department of Business, Innovation and Skills emphasised that there would be a “toolkit” of technical measures employed to encourage illegal file-sharers to desist.
This would include squeezing their bandwidth and imposing download caps.
By what is, we’re sure, merely a concidence, Hollywood mouthperson and MPAA boss Bob Pisano was recently in the UK to suggest traffic throttling rather than outright disconnection would be the way to go.
Pisano flew to London, “to meet Lord Puttnam, the film-maker, who is expected to be a key voice in building support for the plans,” the story adds, said Times Online.
And by a similar coincidence, Sony Music boss Michael Lynton yesterday felt it incumbent upon himself to chime in with his suport of the UK version of the entertainment industry Three Strikes marketing plan.
Campaign against music piracy
“There has been increasing pressure from the music industry to get tough on pirates,” says the Beeb, stating:
“Lily Allen has been spearheading a campaign against music piracy, with high-profile stars including Gary Barlow and James Blunt behind her.”
This refers to a recent declaration by the Featured Artists Coalition. It followed a blog rant by Lily Allen, later taken down.
The FAC stated they’d >>>
… 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.
However, the Great Unwashed are no longer a voiceless, faceless mass. Thanks to the net, they’re bypassing traditional media and speaking directly and almost instantaneously with each other around the world, increasingly calling the shots and making the powers -that-used-to -be, political and corporate alike, pay attention.
On the FAC board as a director is artist-activist and a2f2a.com co-founder Billy Bragg who recently told p2pnet, “Our task now is to convince our colleagues that there is no technical solution, but this will take time.”
Not at all by coincidence, a2f2a.com (artists-to-fans-to-artists) was created on the heels of the FAC declaration and dedicated to putting artists and fans together under the banner, P2P users want to pay for music if they can be sure their money is going to the artists whose work they enjoy.
Also not by coincidence, FAC directors approved a motion to have members officially invited to join a2f2a discussions.
Directors include Dave Rowntree of Blur, Nick Mason of Pink Floyd, Ed O’Brien of Radiohead, Kate Nash, Hal Ritson of The Young Punx, Howard Jones, Mark Kelly of Marillion, Sandie Shaw, Master Shortie, Lucy Pullin of The Fire Escapes, Ross Millard of The Futureheads, Fran Healy of Travis, and Annie Lennox.
Members include Tom Jones, Robbie Williams, Little Boots, Badly Drawn Boy, Sia, The Boxer Rebellion, Kevin Hewick, among many others.
Jon Newton
October 28th, 2009 at 12:19 pm
It would be nice to see some of these other artists come into it. Not only would we be getting more input from some fresh voices, but it would take some of the pressure off Billy, who seems to be handling almost every needed “artist” viewpoint right now.
October 28th, 2009 at 12:30 pm
“it would take some of the pressure off Billy, who seems to be handling almost every needed ‘artist’ viewpoint right now.”
It’ll happen, DA. Slowly, slowly. a2f2a is still brand new — and unique.
And actually, artists are signing up and we’re still putting the word out there. So don’t get too antsy. heh
Also, Billy is like you and a few others — he just can’t resist responding.
Cheers!
October 28th, 2009 at 1:49 pm
My fear is that this announcement and these plans which have not been thouroughly thought out will have the opposite effect on filesharing.
Why? Well encryption technology is built into most file sharing applications these days, darknets are becoming more popular and more and more people are using proxys or VPNs in order to mask their identity. In some ways, this can also be seen as a license to download more – at least until you receive your 2nd warning letter.
Also, as noted by the UK police the other day, this prevents them from monitoring suspected criminals – in turn making the net a more dangerous environment.
This is a slippery slope that will ultimately make it impossible for the recording industry to monitor who is downloading, and what they are downloading. The only way they could then look for filesharers would be to pass a law requiring monitoring software to be installed on each and every computer, phone etc. 1984 anyone?
October 28th, 2009 at 3:12 pm
The Mandelson plan is outrageous, of course, although not surprising.
I have mixed feelings; the plan itself so clearly wrong, and yet at the same time this sort of absolute pig-headed-ness will naturally drive membership and support for the Pirate Party.
It would never have been necessary for us to come into existence, if not for such dogged determination to make copyright ever stronger and more invasive of individual freedoms.
October 28th, 2009 at 8:20 pm
you know @DevilsAvocate, It’s obvious why artists are having difficulty making statements. In a utopia, everyone would state their opinion and people would rationally evalutate the pros and cons of each person’s arguments. No agendas, no contracts looming over their heads. In reality, artists share their opinions through their art. Through their music, their lyrics, their ‘actions’. In today’s world, not to state the rather obvious, ‘artists’ or at least popular artists are subject to the scrutiny of the press. There is a machine behind it of course. Popular people sell popular stories. Which sells news and well, gossip is somehow a cornerstone of society these days.
So, artists, what do they really think? Does anyone really think they are chasing rainbows? In my somewhat limited opiniion… and I must confess, it is more than likely a somewhat skewed view,which takes into consideration a definition of ‘artist’ that I have personally made a decision to define. It is not something that a public votes for simply for the sake of aspiritional subjects who regard ’success’ as the ultimate indication of what is deemed either cultural or significant (because the artists that I talk to on a regular basis create out of pure love for their craft and a social responsibilty. Not only do they really truely love music, they actually care about other artists and the world in general be it their perspectives on politics, influencing behaviour, the power of creativity and the healing that manifests itself through art, etc.)
So, my opinion may not represent the general public’s opinion about what true artists might think. However, all the artists I’ve spoken to agree on a very definite level. They require some support financially. They give. People take. I know it’s all fun to say that artists are never truely recognized until they are dead. You know, Picasso did shoot that theory down. But, I digress. Let’s put it simply. No artist wants to recognize this statement from Mandelson. I admire that he recognizes the lack of fans who are willing to pay for music. I believe that a forum like this one could reach parliament. I admire Billy Bragg and also Jon Newton’s willingness to create a forum for this issue.
Well, I’ve seriously digressed. For @DevilsAdvocate. Most artists aren’t willing to risk alienating their fanbase for their opinions. Artists want to be heard. this happens on so many levels. If you are an artist, you will understand. Let’s be very honest, you don’t go into music because you think you’re going to solve global warming, change the world, or solve world hunger. You go into music out of LOVE. That’s it.
I really shouldn’t participate in my first forum and write a huge essay. But, this is exactly what is needed. There really does need to be a bridge to cross this divide between the musicians who have also been put into that ‘riaa box’ and the p2p (which really means anyone who uses facebook, youtube, pirate bay or whatever).
I have my ideas and opinions. Not sure if you really want to hear thme. In the meanwhile, I have been privy to hear what the other players plan. Unfortunately, it’s not what most internauts want to hear. AS I’ve said before, i don’t think it’s fair, but, it’s bound to happen. It’s only forums like this one that could potentially create a market driven change. So, MOVE.
well done mr. newton and mr. bragg 
October 29th, 2009 at 5:35 am
Doesn’t change a thing, seedboxes, ssl, vpn, dark nets, xdcc, ftp, sneakernet, “trusted” nets like oneswarm to name but a few, all just got a boost in users.
The Government spends millions, and achieves nothing. figures may very well drop on filesharing reports, but the amount won’t change one bit, it will just be done differently and in a way that will be hard to measure. The only way to tell will be from traffic througput and that is no measure at all as it is a catch-all… Illegal VPN traffic looks just the same as legal, same with ftp etc.
All that happens when they approve this is that £5 or £10 per month went from my disposable income that may have been spent on a film, music or game, into a VPN.
October 29th, 2009 at 11:04 am
@Indiana Gregg:
First of all, welcome to a2f2a!
I’m happy to see you here, and also pleasantly surprised.
Let me just grab a few of your points to expand…
1) “In reality, artists share their opinions through their art.”
While “expression” through art is one of the things that keep the fans fascinated, the current mess we’re here to discuss is not going to be addressed by anything but good, constructive conversation between the diverse minds of both artists and the fans.
2) “Most artists aren’t willing to risk alienating their fanbase for their opinions.”
One thing that was already established, and sparked the creation of this site, was that the horse is already out of the barn on that one.
The fanbase was already alienated and criminalized. Yes, this was done by your labels, of course, but their propaganda was also spread throughout the artist community as well. Some artists, not knowing any better at the time, jumped on the same podium and repeated their labels’ words, either because they truly believed what they were saying, or because their extortionary contracts had them in a bind where they couldn’t speak their own mind.
This did a lot of damage to the artists and the fans, and the relationship of the two. Damage that needs to be repaired immediately, if music is to remain a viable career base in the digital world. Hence, sparked by some much-needed exchange between Billy, Jon and the very P2P community being debased by the Industry, a2f2a arose.
It should be a “given” that, on any internet forum, those that don’t want their identity known (either “at the time”, or “ever”) can always comment anonymously. The sum of everyone’s input will be what does it – not necessarily the knowledge of who any of it came from.
Obviously, I’m not using my true name here (yet?) either.
What I can tell you is I was an aspiring keyboard-playing musician in my younger years, but who didn’t pursue music as a career. I’m a digital graphic artist, but I never lost touch with music.
So, I’m essentially from the “consumer” side of this equation, as are virtually all of the others that are currently posting comments here (hence my original comment).
3) “I have my ideas and opinions. Not sure if you really want to hear them”
YES, WE DO!!
I would rather see 100 opinions I don’t agree with presented by artists, than to see a half-dozen seemingly good ideas passed around by only the P2P world. (What good would they be?)
The idea here is, the labels have taken artists into a direction that increasingly fails as we venture deeper into the digital world. The labels are the only ones currently making any real money from music, and they’re in danger of becoming obsolete. And, they don’t care about the performers, or the customers who buy their recordings, as they struggle to save a failing business model.
A new model is needed.
Possibly one that gets rid of many middlemen in the picture. (Think of the savings!)
Who’s going to design such a model, if not the artists themselves, with the encouragement and support of the very fan base you need to recoup?
4) “I have been privy to hear what the other players plan. Unfortunately, it’s not what most internauts want to hear.”
You’d probably be surprised at this point exactly what the internet community has to say about all this! We’re no strangers to what the propaganda has done to “both sides” of this relationship.
The problem with what “some other players plan” is that many of the things they’re “planning” are only backed by people like their labels and a handful in various governments. Such things don’t have the support of the fans, and indeed!, still require them to engage in some very “anti-fan”/”anti-consumer” activities, and will ultimately backfire.
I’m confident many such artists will see through this kind of self-destructive strategy before they even get their hands dirty. Hopefully, we will see them “here”.
October 29th, 2009 at 11:19 am
…and in the end, the artists who promote by facilitating file sharing will be far more successful than the ones who obstruct it…
October 29th, 2009 at 11:40 am
” I have my ideas and opinions. Not sure if you really want to hear thme. ”
Yes we do, that’s why we’re all here.
That’s also why the rules have been setup the way they have, so that you can feel reasonable comfortable enough to speak your true feelings without needing a ‘Flame Suit’.
” You go into music out of LOVE. That’s it. ”
Can’t argue with that. I also can’t argue with a need to make a living. How you define making a living may be different that how others would define it. The labels aren’t the only way to make a living at it anymore, if you make music that others like. Just because you make it doesn’t mean that everyone will want it, and the labels forcing it down our throats won’t make us want it more or less. If you define making a living as meeting your basic needs without worry and having some left over for fun, then your definition matches mine, and that goal WAS achievable for me ( at one time ) without the labels. Your still young, so this definition of making a living IS achievable to you, without the labels.
” I have been privy to hear what the other players plan. Unfortunately, it’s not what most internauts want to hear. AS I’ve said before, i don’t think it’s fair, but, it’s bound to happen. ”
It doesn’t have to. If you truly believe that it’s not the right way to go .. DON’T SUPPORT IT. Even though your hands didn’t create the rule, you have seen for yourself, you and your peers will suffer the brunt of the backlash because the labels hide behind you the way a coward hides behind a child. Yes, it’s a risk. and yes it’s hard to do, but the right thing is usually the toughest thing to do.
October 29th, 2009 at 6:01 pm
This is what we’re supporting: http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/compulsary_worldwide_digital_mus/index.html
(this is just the online petition, there is a physical petition).
Going back to previous entries that I’ve read on this forum, you cannot only have a levy on ISPs, there must be a license in place that places responsibilty on the sites themselves (be it p2p, social networks, etc.) to collect the streaming and download data to be submitted on behalf of the artists. If there were a global compulsory license for music (and perhaps all media) on the web similar to radio whereby websites would be held responsible for tracking the data and making a contribution to the media that they are ‘using’ to generate their traffic and revenues. (e.g. for example, a p2p site would be responsible for collecting the data to hand over to the ISPs and pay an annual license. There wouldn’t be any ‘black box’ figures because the data would be available to allocate to the artists, same with myspace, youtube, facebook, etc.) The license fees would contribute in a more efficient way that radio licenses have in the past. The ISPs contribution in combination with this kind of global license could potentially create a more positive and balanced eco-system. Government’s contribution could go towards the regeneration and aiding of websites to be equipped with this kind of accounting system rather than in chasing 3 strikes offenders. Subsidies that could help create jobs and benefit society rather than serving monopoly interest.
October 29th, 2009 at 8:35 pm
” Subsidies that could help create jobs and benefit society rather than serving monopoly interest. ”
Anything that suggests an internet tax does nothing BUT serve monopoly interests, since those monopolies hold the majority of the copyrights ( not the artists ). My hope is that future generations of musicians simply ignore the labels completely, and do it themselves. They will then own their own copyrights and be able to make their own deals. That’s what will end the labels hold on things. Allowing the labels money for nothing without accountability will only allow them to close yet another avenue for artists to carve their own path.
I don’t recommend anyone who REALLY wants to break the labels monopoly sign this petition.
October 29th, 2009 at 8:44 pm
Regarding compulsory worldwide digital licensing:
Wouldn’t you be afraid generating a huge data monster and monopoly with that? I mean the accounting system is one thing, but someone would actually need to aggregate all those accounts and handle the payouts to the artists.
It will be very likely that the organizations doing that will be the middelmen the internet makes obsolet and we want to cut out. I’d like to focus your attention on an alternative way how this problem could be solved without a central organization.
I wrote it down here: http://a2f2a.com/2009/10/27/louie-louies-jack-ely-joins-a2f2a/#comment-263
I’d be happy to have this concept considered within this discussion, too.
October 29th, 2009 at 8:55 pm
Ah and what I forgot:
The EFF (Electronic Frontier Foundation) is lobbying for a very similar concept since 2003.
Voluntary Collective Licensing: http://www.eff.org/wp/better-way-forward-voluntary-collective-licensing-music-file-sharing
This concept also strongly relies on large collecting societies of which I am not a real fan, I must say..
October 30th, 2009 at 7:20 am
Ultimately all that compulsory licenses do is collect $6,000,000,000 from everyone, and pay $2b back (to everyone, for we are all artists), but with $2b to collecting societies/publishers, and $2b to the government as tax. A few popular artists might see more of their $2b than some, but really it’s all just a redistribution of wealth into the corporations’ pockets.
Imagine the Sheriff of Nottingham persuading all the peasants that if they let him look after 10% of all their earnings he’ll give back 33% of it to each according to how culturally productive they are, but he’ll keep 67% as the cost of paying the collectors and auditors to ensure no-one cheats.
People eventually figure out that a free* market is a tad more efficient.
In other words we keep our $100, and spend only $10 on just those few artists we would favour, who we feel stand out from the rest and would encourage to produce more. The best artists end up just as relatively better off as they would anyway, but we’re all vastly better off given we’re not paying $100 to get back $33 on average, sometimes $20, sometimes $40.
* Free markets are those without monopolies or levies.
October 30th, 2009 at 3:24 pm
@Indiana Gregg
On the petition is states:
“If you believe that telecom and cable companies should perhaps be taxed in order to help compensate a Free Culture for music on the web (this can be done without raising the price of broadband to the end user), please sign this petition.”
I am curious how this tax would be paid without it increasing the price the consumer pays. For the record, I would support something like this, if it also covered other media and not solely music. Currently I prefer the option to pay an artist directly where facility is provided (Dan Bull was last to receive some money from me for his free album and Dear Lily video). I do however realise that I am not in the majority in my willingness pay sometimes and a “tax” might be useful.
Would the artists actually receive it though. Do they receive funds from the current media taxation in places such as Canada? I have read comments that they don’t and it just *vanishes* but that is hearsay.