“Artists To Fans To Artists” (a2f2a) became a reality only a month ago, but already it’s packed with input!
That’s great, but that means we need to collect and highlight all constructive comments to gain an overall perspective of the ideas, and to find the common ground. I’ll be attempting to do this in digests that I’ll be putting out every week, with luck.
Digests should obviously be brief, so to keep this from becoming a behemoth, I’m centering on topics, showing where each one is going by summarizing the numerous “bare-bones” points, mostly without the attributions. These are under “consensus”, “pros” and “cons” headers, where applicable. For thoughts that didn’t fit such labels, I created a “miscellaneous” header.
I should mention that, if anyone has any concerns over how these digests are created, or any ideas on how future editions can be improved, please email Jon at p2p @ shaw dot ca. This is my first attempt at any kind of a digest, so feedback is welcome and could be helpful.
Thanks! 
- Devil’s Advocate
_____________________________
RELATIONSHIPS & PROPAGANDA
“Technology is NOT our enemy.” – Leyton
“We need to adapt to a changing world where digital information can be shared, rather than to try to force everything to behave the way it used to with physical media.” – John Barron
“A major aspect of the problem is the labels don’t want artists talking to their fans at all.” – Jon Newton
“There are those both within the industry and within the p2p community who do not want this dialogue to produce positive results that will make their entrenched positions indefensible.” – Billy Bragg
Consensus >>>
Industry propaganda has been spread all around, leaving artists and fans inappropriately pitted against each other, when in fact both want good music released in a convenient format, at a fair price, and with fair remunerations.
Trust has to be rebuilt on both fronts.
File sharers are not “criminals” or “thieves”.
Artists are not “gold-diggers” looking to gain maximum wealth from minimal effort.
Artists want to be paid, and the fans want to pay them.
The Recording Industry is no longer essential to either produce or distribute music, however currently still owns and controls virtually everything that shapes the scene.
FILESHARING & TECHNOLOGY
“Instead of cutting people off the internet, I’d much rather they sent the worst offenders into studios for a week to do community service to understand exactly what goes into the process of making music.” – Sean Adams
“There is no technological solution to the problems that artists face as a result of the digitization of music.” – Billy Bragg
“I think what people are ‘demanding’ is an end to the insanity. They want to be able to enjoy music (and its artists) again, and use their legally-purchased technology again, without fear of being persecuted and prosecuted at every turn for that.” – Devil’s Advocate
Miscellaneous >>>
Filesharing actually serves as a great, free promotional tool and should be encouraged, rather than suppressed.
Filesharing is not “illegal”.
A shared file does not constitute a lost sale. Never did, never will.
“3 STRIKES”
“No artist wants to recognize this statement from Mandelson. Most artists aren’t willing to risk alienating their fan base for their opinions.” – Indiana Gregg
Cons >>>
Just another way to criminalize the fan base.
Assumed guilt without benefit of legal oversight, and inflicted losses, some irreversible.
THE LABELS
“The industry is clinging to a business built on mass-produced ’small bits of plastic’ sold inside physical stores.” – Peter Jenner
“…creative bookkeeping and fine print robs more artists of more income than all the fan copying does… Artists should be rewarded for the joy they give us. A just system can be achieved, but greedy and arrogant middlemen are going to have to be marginalized” – David Wilson
Pros >>>
Artists still need advertising, promotion, events and gigs – most of which are still money earners.
Cons >>>
It might be cheaper for artists to use “non-label” sources for the supporting work.
Labels play favourites on who they’re going to promote.
Non-Disclosure Agreements are a major obstacle in many attempts to improve the landscape.
The labels want policies that turn the net into “corporate-controlled radio”.
COPYRIGHT
“Technology is advancing far too quickly for the old safeguards of intellectual property rights to keep up” – Billy Bragg
“Treat me like a customer and your friend, not a thief and brigand.” – David L.
“The middlemen aren’t only the labels. They’re also the politicians, industry lobbyists, copyright lawyers and ‘consultants’ and all the other ‘professionals’ who depend absolutely on the status quo remaining the status quo.” – Jon Newton
Consensus >>>
DRM needs to die.
The practice of chastising personal use needs to stop.
Terms like “personal use” and “commercial use” need to be better defined, if any form of copyright is to work.
Pros >>>
A new copyright could only come into play when there is material gain.
Copyright will still be important in ensuring that individual artists are not ripped off by exploiters and other businesses that use music to attract customers.
If applied only to exploitation for gain and alongside fair use exemptions, copyright could be a method of remuneration for artists rather than control.
Distinguish between those sharing files for personal use and those exploiting artists’ work for material gain.
Cons >>>
The absurd levels to which copyright has been expanded has been totally counter-productive to its original intent.
The whole idea of copyright may have already been defeated.
It may be better to build a new system based on bona fide natural rights.
Outlawing private copying is already wrong by law, and therefore, shouldn’t need another law or agreement to “legalize” it.
Some feel it may be more constructive to pursue a way to pay the artists without having to combat the present copyright system. Too many middlemen in the equation that won’t want anything to change.
Current copyrights do limit the artists’ options for making money from their creations by making certain ventures “illegal”.
Miscellaneous >>>
Granting perpetual rights (“forever” minus a day) doesn’t serve any benefit to society.
Limited copyright is fair, as is the natural right to build upon existing works after a fair period of time.
The Public Domain is every bit as important as a creator’s right to capitalize on his work.
Cutting the record industry out of the equation would mean more artists will own their own material for life of copyright.
Copyright should only apply to creations that make money. Second-hand sales would be exempt from this rule.
Copyrights are no good if unrealistic measures are needed to enforce them.
A “new” copyright would require new laws, which would see many obstacles in passing.
Streaming services don’t address the desire to migrate to another venue or device.
Perhaps a one-time “commercial” license could apply to those proven to make money directly from the playing of the music.
LEVIES
“Pandora’s Box!… Every failing business model that’s out there right now will look upon the new scheme to help line their pockets.” – Devil’s Advocate
Pros >>>
Music may need a “bailout” in the form of an “ISP tax”, but in the form of a fund that is used to commission new works directly from artists.
Some do not favour a tax at the ISP level, but support pay-to-consume and/or flat-rate download services.
Cons >>>
You may not be able to introduce a new levy while the Labels exist.
Existing collection agents are already failing to properly distribute money to artists.
Any levies will just become more “Blackbox” money to be hidden by the Labels.
Oppressive fees drive away all of the small players.
While the Labels exist, any levies introduced may re-enable them to continue controlling.
Any new levies/taxes will be demanded by every interested party in the entire current IP structure, thus complicating the scheme too much, and exploding both the consumer price and the administration costs.
An ISP levy would just result in a compulsory subsidy for the industry and create a privileged sector that won’t have to negotiate the markets like the others.
In order to tax at the ISP level, and not force everyone to subsidize something they may not have use for, ISPs would need to offer an “opt-in” or “opt-out” model, which can only be done by tracking everyone’s usage.
“Trust” seems to be lacking with any existing players that would be involved in collecting any of these funds, or tracking user data.
Protecting personal data is already an issue.
ROYALTIES & LICENSES
“…there is no win to privilege.” – Crosbie Fitch
“…there seem to be two quests going on: 1) How to enable artists to be paid by their audience (without privilege) ; 2) What new privilege can be created to reproduce copyright’s ability to collect a royalty for artists, given that copying can no longer be controlled or measured… I’m here for ‘1′, and will have no part of ‘2′ .” – Crosbie Fitch
Pros >>>
Radio stations may be unfairly pocketing increased ad revenue as a direct result of playing the music which increases the amount of listeners.
The promotional value of airplay may not be adequate compensation.
There needs to be a fair remuneration for providing them with the means to attract an audience.
The line between direct and indirect gain could be drawn at “broadcast media”.
Cons >>>
Royalties result in the promotion of only what’s already popular.
Exposure may have equal or more value to that of royalties.
Advertising has been shown to remove some value from a radio station.
It may be impossible to determine what constitutes a “direct” or “indirect” gain, or even if there is gain.
Miscellaneous >>>
Cutting out the Labels could render the question of charging a royalty or levy moot.
The question of music being a “service”, and the question of that being an important question in itself, would both need to be answered.
ARTISTS “WANT/NEED” TO BE PAID
& ALTERNATIVE METHODS TO PAY THEM
“It’s reasonable and proper to expect payment for your works if the user enjoys them. It is NOT reasonable to expect customers to pay for it just because you created it. It is NOT reasonable to blame customers if they simply don’t like what you’ve created.” – Dreddsnik
“To say that artists should be paid absolutely is a fairly empty statement. Anybody who wants to be paid for anything has to make a deal of some kind. You don’t turn up uninvited, start digging somebody’s garden then demand payment.” – Clark Sorley
“Our two communities must work together to shape the music industry to reflect our needs, rather than those of the multi-national corporations that control the recording industry. A direct artist-to-fan model would make music available and reap mutual economic benefits.” – Billy Bragg
“It’s not the new artists we should be worried about at all. It’s the people who are trying to find ‘solutions’ to a ‘problem’ that doesn’t exist that are holding themselves back.” - Steelwolf
Consensus >>>
We need to straighten out the matter of some broad questions to a few important principles that have been asked (examples: “Do you think you have a right to get the music you want for free?”, and “Should a radio station pay me a royalty to play my music?”). Discussions on these became somewhat “passionate”, so that must mean we need to dissect the questions into smaller ones, and answer those.
Pros >>>
The Internet has tremendous exposure opportunity to sell the artists’ work, and the artists themselves, which is what people will pay for, but the digital copies that make it out there have no real market value in themselves.
Independent artists could run a PayPal-style option from their websites, or distribution sites, and sell things that are unique and not so ubiquitous, as one form of career supplement.
Only good music will sell without the artificial promotion supplied by labels.
New artists who use the Internet don’t currently seem to be having trouble getting known.
Adopting a model outside the confines of copyright might requires no new laws, and can be launched immediately.
Cons >>>
“Need” suggests a sense of “automatic entitlement” that may not apply. Fans, however, do WANT to pay.
Miscellaneous >>>
“Commercial use” may need to be properly defined.
The idea of “micropayments” may have merit, but has yet to be properly expanded.
There is a need to avoid demanding money from those who are not deriving profit from the use of music.
IS THE MARKET FOR COPIES “OVER”?
“Publishing corporations love being able to charge for copies of performances for 150 years, even if they’re sometimes forced by auditors to cough up the 1% royalty they promised to the artist or their heirs. It’s high time artists were paid for their work in full, and the public got back their liberty to share and build upon it.“ – Crosbie Fitch
“That music is being shared for free online is a given that may not be possible to change. Artists should be compensated, but it may be through alternative revenue streams rather than the sale of copies of music.” – David L.
“The market for copies isn’t over, no matter how many of you keep repeating this canard.” – Billy Bragg
Miscellaneous >>>
Very mixed opinions!
Some appear to not understand the question or the premise for asking it.
Very profound idea that many find hard to grasp at this point.
Devil’s Advocate – a2f2a digest editor 