2. Definitely not. In my experience a song shared approximately equals a song bought at a latter time (after I have a chance to see if I like it). I always have to kind of roll my eyes when people start debating “why people pirate rather than paying for stuff”, because to me the two aren’t alternatives to begin with, thus the question doesn’t even make sense.

3. From the perspective of an engineer in the computer industry, this is certainly true. Copyright can still be effective in attacking companies and large-scale physical counterfeiters that profit from infringement (e.g. how the system was original intended), but when the internet gets thrown in things become really difficult.

As far as non-commercial personal infringement, the situation is essentially: effective copyright enforcement or the Constitution (or analogous documents guaranteeing such things as due process and the right to a fair trial), choose one; because as long as people have those basic inalienable rights, all you’re doing is whacking moles. Anything involving user-generated content (e.g. YouTube) is also just about impossible to effectively apply copyright to, for technical reasons. It also becomes very difficult to deal with things like The Pirate Bay, where the group does not directly monetize their actions, and it’s unclear if they’re making ad revenue beyond their operating costs (in other words, a profit).

4. Absolutely. That’s why I buy all the music I like. I was really sad when one American company went out of business last year; this was one of the very few companies that legally licensed Japanese stuff and sold the stuff (with translated packaging) in the US at US CD prices. The significance of this is that I can no longer legally support some of my favorite composers at a price I’m willing to pay (I’m sorry, but I’m not going to pay $30 for a single CD, as is typical in Japan, that I can’t even read the booklet to).

What do you think? Would it be OK for me to go to Britain and talk to the committee members? I’d really like your opinion.

Hell yeah. With any luck someone might even listen. There has not been a single meeting like this where anybody other than corporations or their property have been allowed to even enter, let alone SAY anything.I just hope they don’t gag you with some non-disclosuse crap.At the very leat you MIGHT be able to present some FACTS to counter the bullshit .. and there sure is a lot of it

Of course I want to be there. When we started a2f2a.com, I said I was really happy to be actually doing something having been writing about it for nine years. This would be taking things a much bigger step further.

In another post Crosbie says “I’m not trying to represent a constituency, I’m trying to help everyone understand what’s happening.”

Me too. I may not be representing the P2P/file sharing constituency which, lest we forget, comprises not only men, women and children in England, but also a hundreds of millions of other people around the world, but I definitely see myself as an active member of it.

The Featured Artists Coalition will be at this meeting, as will corporate music industry lobbyists, politicians, and others. The only people who won’t be there will be the ones it’s all about – - the fans. If I go, I’ll be representing myself and p2pnet, the site, and I believe I could add an element that’s missing.

Crosbie also says

p2pnet and its community aren’t representatives of an association. They are members of the public particularly interested in technology that liberates people from anachronistic constraints of the 18th century, and particularly interested in its enablement of greater cultural exchange. They are also interested in ameliorating the depredations of corporations struggling to preserve an anachronistic and dying business model.

He’s correct. However, ‘Anachronistic constraints of the 18th century’ also means the continuing application of archaic laws which prevent people from freely speaking out, and with that in mind, I’ve been sued three times: once by a wealthy businessman; once by a Sharman Networks, the multi-million-dollar owners of Kazaa, the P2P file sharing application; and, once by its CEO, Nikki Hemming. Sharman eventually dropped its end of the case, but Hemming hasn’t. I won the first case in a precedent-setting decision with major implications for online freedom of speech. The case Hemming launched against me is due to go to trial this February. I’ve also been threatened by lawyers acting for four other rich corporations. Fortunately, when I ignored them, they went no further.

In other words, I’m saying I believe I’ve paid my dues as a member of the online P2P constituency and I’d dearly love to be at the meeting Billy refers to so I can report on it, and so I can speak as at least one of the people accused of being a filesharing criminal and thief.

It’ll be in the UK, but it’ll echo round the world

What do you think? Would it be OK for me to go to Britain and talk to the committee members? I’d really like your opinion.

Cheers! And thanks (and apologies for the long comment)

Not that I’m exactly impartial, nor would speak for a2f2a directly, given my explicitly stated political affiliation and activity, but perhaps that is as much useful as not, and it seems this is a viewpoint not being heard at present.

And I may well wish to stand for Parliament in due course, to raise these questions directly, should we not succeed in doing so earlier.

I guess it would all depend on what kind of “consensus” you would need, outside of what you’ve already got from us.

Since I’ve already written the first digest , I already know we have consensus on the following:

1) Industry-generated propaganda has harmed fans (of which file sharers are their biggest, according to neutral studies), artists, and the Industry itself.

2) A file shared does NOT equal a lost sale.

3) Copyright, as it stands, is unworkable, right now.

4) Fans want artists to succeed.

5) Fans are fed up with the way the Industry has misrepresented artists, as well as the way they’ve fought technology at every turn, at the expense of both the artists’ well-being and reputation, and the fans’ ability to enjoy and support artists .

6) The labels are perfectly willing to take the entire music scene down with them, as they cling to their mission of remaining a monopoly of control.

There’s more, but you get the idea.