Indie artist Indiana Gregg (right) became suddenly and instantly (in)famous when she had the temerity to launch a full frontal assault on The Pirate Bay.
Like TPB is HOLY! No one attacks them!
She and her husband, Ian Morrow, asked TPB to remove a .torrent linking to Gregg’s ‘Woman At Work’ album.
And they suffered the wrath of the net as a result.
That was more than a year ago and Indiana, still front and centre in the copyfight, recently decided she wasn’t content to accept the mainstream media reports of the UK government’s plans for its version of the Three Strikes and you’re Off The Net policy.
Anyone who “persistently” downloads ‘illegal’ content after being twice warned not to do it will be disconnected, business secretary Peter Mandelson said.
Print and electronic mainstream media consistently lay the plan on his doorstep, presenting it as a UK ‘initiative’. But it’s world wide and ISPs everywhere may be forced to snoop on their customers and cut them off if they’re found to have shared copyright-protected music online, said the IDG News Service in a story on the latest round of the secret ACTA talks which have just concluded in Korea.
Because ACTA and the Three Strikes plans go hand-in-hand.
“Promoted by America, Yes — but on behalf of the entertainment industry,” said p2pnet, going on the ‘initiative’ is “touted around the world as individual government plans is nothing but a part of a carefully orchestrated campaign to turn governments into copyright agencies funded by local taxpayers, and ISPs into copyright police, acting against their own customers.”
Mandelson is, then, doing no more than handling it in Britain on behalf of Vivendi Universal, EMI, Warner Music and Sony Music, and Disney, News Corp, Time Warner, Viacom, NBC Universal and Sony Pictures.
What, specifically, does he have in mind?
When Indiana asked him, she received a reply from James Matthews of the BIS ministerial correspondence unit which, among other things, shamelessly and blatantly promotes Virgin Media and Universal.
It says >>>
The Government wants as many people as possible to enjoy all the benefits that broadband internet can bring. New technology has changed the way people want to use and access media content, in some cases faster than products and services commercially on offer have developed. But we are also clear that the benefits of the internet must include economic benefits for our creative industries and artists. We therefore take extremely seriously the problem of illegal file sharing, and have been working closely with rights holders, media companies and internet firms to develop practical solutions to reduce and prevent this.
Whilst all parties would prefer a voluntary, rather than a regulatory solution, it is clear that such a commercial solution is very difficult to achieve. We recognize that one problem is the need for a level playing field and therefore acknowledge the need for a regulatory baseline. Last year we had a consultation on possible legislative options to tackle file-sharing; this, submissions received and the Government’s response can be found at: http://www.ber.go.uk/consultations/page47141.html
We set out how we pan to move forward on this in the Digital Britain Report published on 16 June, which identified the need to encourage new sources of content and increased levels of media literacy as well as how to tackle whose unlawfully sharing copyright material (chapter 4). The report can be found at:
http://www.dcms.gov.uk/what_we_do/broadcasting/5631.aspx
We propose to legislate to ensure that consumers whose broadband account has been identified in connection with alleged copyright infringement would be alerted by letter. This would set out the legal position but also provide pointers for help and information on, for example, how to protect wireless networks properly, where to find legal sources and routes of appeal. This letter would come from the Internet Service Providers (ISP) concerned, not a law firm. This should help address many concerns about individuals being wrongly identified, not having the correct information or indeed feeling pressured by the threat of legal action.
For those individuals who choose to ignore the letter, they will receive a number of further warnings before they are ultimately addd to a list of those subscribers most frequently alleged to have breached copyright. Rights holders will be able to use a court order to obtain the details of these individuals and then take targeted legal action as appropriate. This should ensure that individuals have ample opportunity to change their behaviour, take appropriate action to, for example, secure their wireless connection or indeed appeal. It would also mean that only those who chose to ignore the warnings and who appeared to continue to infringe copyright on a large scale would face legal action.
As a final safeguard, this activity would be underpinned by a Code overseen by the independent regulator the Office of Communications (Ofcom). A key issue the Code woud have to cover is consumer protection- one of Ofcom’s prime roles. However, we are breaking new ground in legislating to tackle this type of activity and while we are confident these measures will significantly reduce the level of unlawful file-sharing, we cannot be sure. That is why we are also including the option to allow the introduction of technical measures if the notifications and legal action do not prove as effective as we expect.
We committed in the interim Digital Britain report to consult on the detail of the legislative proposals and this sonsultation was issued on 16 June. Following this, concern was expressed at the length of time it would take to implement these measures- or indeed move to technical measures. We therefore decided to modify these proposals and issued a statement on 25 August explaining our thinking. The consultation on these proposals closed on 29 September. We are in the process of analyzing all the responses received and intend to issue a summary along with the Government’s top-level response in November. I hope your constituent was able to contribute to the debate.
However, it is not possible to look at file-sharing in isolation. There is also the need to ensure proper education of consumers, for new attractive legal sources of content as well as a system of notifications; these will play a significant part in that education role. It is vital that there are attractive legal offers available so that unlawful behaviour is no longer the default” for many seeking content online. That is why we welcomed the recent announcement by Virgin Media and Universal on the launchof a subscription download model, allied with Virgin taking anti-piracy measures on its network. This is the type of agreement which will play a critical role in moving the majority of people away from piracy.
Our ambition is to see the UK as the leading major economy for innovation, investment and quality in the digital and communications industries. The Digital Britain Report aims to secure four key conditions, namely: open markets; empowered and informed consumers and citizens; universal access to public service content; and a responsive regulatory framework. One work-stream will explore business models for content deveopment in the digital age and the impact of new media on the content market. In addition, the UK Intellectual Property Office will take forward work to deliver a digital copyright framework which supports creativity, investment and job creation.
Definitely stay tuned.
November 9th, 2009 at 9:51 am
“…Indianna, still front and centre in the copyfight, recently decided she wasn’t content to accept the mainstream media reports of the UK government’s plans for its version of the Three Strikes…”
I’d still like to know what Indiana’s actually trying to say.
Her few posts here a contained a couple of sensible statements, which were then conflicted by pointing people to a very vague petition to “trade off” prosecuting filesharers for yet another form of music license, which to be charitable, is a curious piece of logic.
November 9th, 2009 at 11:07 am
I’m pretty sure that wasn’t her DA, that was a publicist that posted in her name a cut and paste piece pushing the a petition for a levy.
” For those individuals who choose to ignore the letter, they will receive a number of further warnings before they are ultimately addd to a list of those subscribers most frequently alleged to have breached copyright. ”
Same shit, different day. Not one of these things address the FREQUENT possibility that no one at that IP address did any files sharing. What if they choose to notify the ISP that no one did any file sharing ? Oh, I know ….
” they will receive a number of further warnings before they are ultimately addd to a list of those subscribers most frequently alleged to have breached copyright. Rights holders will be able to use a court order to obtain the details of these individuals and then take targeted legal action as appropriate. ” … THIS will happen, even if they did nothing , exactly like all of us are saying, they will have to prove their innocence .. in the meantime they will be off the net.
These all smell like press peices with her name on them.
They smell like something else too. I hope the ‘wrath of the net’ continues to fall on her in the way of a boycott. BTW, those artists that do come here do realize .. you are being boycotted if you publicly support garbage like this , right ? Sharing isn’t what’s cutting your sales .. it’s the backlash of the customers. Sharing itself has no effect on sales, customer enmity does.
November 9th, 2009 at 3:43 pm
I want to point out to artists that come here that we the fans value your opinion and we’re extending a hand of partnership and cooperation. We’re all here to find a way to make this whole music in the digital age thing work so that everyone’s happy (except maybe the middleman). By coming here, we don’t want you to expect the “wrath of the net” or a boycott. We want you to expect challenging ideas, and we expect your own. That’s the only way we can all progress and solve this problem.
November 9th, 2009 at 4:01 pm
@ David L:
Absolutely.
Meanwhile,”I have uniquely (for a personal blogger) had an opportunity to have direct communication with Ms Gregg who has more than answered the allegations by others and provided evidence in relation to those allegations,” says openbytes in a blog post from last month.
A little while ago I had a very long phone call with Indiana and I agree with openbytes. As I’ve just said in p2pnet comment, “she got the sticky end of the stick. She’s a very nice, very open person and not at all what’s she’s been cracked up to be.” She’s also someone who’s been there and back with the labels and I’ll be doing what I’m pretty sure will be some interesting and educational posts based on our conversation.
Cheers!
November 9th, 2009 at 6:49 pm
I look forward to some posts, from her. And she doesn’t have to worry about fangs or claws,from US anyway.
November 10th, 2009 at 5:51 am
Yes it would be interesting to know what Indiana’s position is at least to address the seeming contradictions in her remarks.
Take this: “We mostly all agree that governments & ISPs taking internet access away from their customers is a complete non-starter.”
Then this: “Last year, in an article on Sky News, I read that a woman received a massive fine for file sharing on the KaZaA network. I thought, great! The police are coming.”
No to three strikes, to Mandelson. Yes to criminalising people for sharing a few music tracks. It’s hard to know what to take from that. Is it that the proposed legislation is a non-starter on moral grounds – i.e breech of human rights, convictions based on accusation? Or is it a non-starter being ineffective – i.e. is unworkable, wouldn’t hurt enough?
If it’s the latter there’s no contradiction and her position really is as hardline as some people were suggesting.
Maybe she’ll come to this discussion and enlighten.
November 10th, 2009 at 9:11 am
Hi
First of all, I AM me ‘Indiana Gregg’. My publicist is not writing this message or any other message.
@Clark Sorley I see your point and I can see how my letter to TPB might be misinterpreted when paraphrased in such a way (as you have done). Paraphrasing is one of the reasons why there are so many different denominations of the same religions fighting with each other. If you take one verse out of context, you can make an entire religion look hypocritical. Not very hard to do. Likewise, taking one part of a thought pattern in a blog out of context leaves a lot of room for interpretation without truly exploring the ‘intent’. Happens all the time in politics too, doesn’t it? But, I’m not into politics or wars or fights between religious factions. I’m into ‘fair play’ for creative people. So, below is the complete ‘thought’ and exactly what I did write last year:
(as you can see here, what I was doing was setting up the two extremes to get to what I felt like the ‘real’ issue was/(is) .)
—————————–
my point being:
P2p as it is now (and was then) isn’t a fair and level playing field yet. (If it were, we wouldn’t be having this discussion and government wouldn’t feel the ‘need’ to intervene).
Nobody needs to waste any more breathe about whether a download would equal a ‘lost’ sale or not. It doesn’t matter whether you are talking about a stream or a download, they are the SAME thing. Neither one has any value until the music being accessed is ‘heard’ or ‘used’. Once you access music, once you ‘hear’ it, you are a consumer. ‘Try before you buy’ is senseless. You hear it, you’ve used it. (Same with film: You don’t need to ‘try’ the film first. Once you’ve seen it, that’s it. It’s done.) “USE” is the key word here. Media is like gas or electricity in the digital environment. You don’t tell the gas board that you plan to try out their service beforehand. The moment you are listening, you are consuming.
ISPs SELL you media. You are already paying for it when you upgrade to the 20gb-40GB broadband and beyond. Introducing an ISP tax is NOT meant as a tarif to be passed onto the consumer. (I can explain why and I’ve shared these thoughts with Jon already). An ISP tax woulb be a tax on net profits.
Websites use media to draw traffic, sell advertising, ‘upsell’ to their users and keep people clicking through pages. My argument is (and always has been) “why aren’t these sites contributing to the compensation of artists.” This is where a public license could come into play. (Anyway, I’ve written to Jon with an explanation of what I mean by this. So, before you make a decision to draw a conclusion, wait to see what the meat of a public compulsory license is about and likewise, think about the alternatives: (3-strikes, legal battles, costs passed on from ISPs to consumers, cost past onto tax-payers, etc., loopholes and ‘technical measures’ that allow heavier legislation to follow as per the letter above from Mandelson’s peeps.)
A public license is NOT about making people pay extra to their ISPs or ‘opting in’. You’ve already done that. You already pay for it. A public license is about the sites and services who use media. Second prong ‘ISP levy’ is exactly that: a levy on ISPs on their net profits. Now, I’m not going to try to explain it all in a comment here. I’ve written to Jon and spoken with him at length.
Income streams for artists: of course bands can play live. But, playing live is also costly. Sales of recordings (in the past) used to help generate tour support and vice-versa (touring helped produce sales). A lot of tours don’t break even until a band begins to fill bigger venues. Support acts more often than not ‘pay’ to play. Selling merch is a fine idea, but, deviates from the real objective; e.g. MUSIC. Independent bands and artists aren’t going to shift a lot of merch and need upfront cash to print the merch in order to sell it at gigs. If you are on a support tour, you aren’t usually allowed to sell merch at the gigs (subject to contract). That’s part of the ’sisyphus’ effect that I was referring to in that same quoted article @Clark is talking about.
Are we going to use the same argument for the independent film industry as well? Are the actors meant to do stage shows and play the film live? Sell t-shirts maybe?
November 10th, 2009 at 10:46 am
Indiana,
Please remember this when using analogies:
1) Petrol and bread are quite different from entertainment, entertainment is a subjective value based system while petrol and bread have a quantitative value based system
2) If you hated that movie or CD, you’re out $14 or $20, no refund or return! If you hated that loaf of bread, it was only $2 and if the gas ruined your car, you have legal recourse (as with bread if you were ill as a result)
3) Try before you buy applies in the non-entertainment industry, that’s why they have food samples in supermarkets and test drives of automobiles
You forget, the playing field IS now level, just not for artists like you because you have not quite grasped the potential or you are under contractual obligations or maybe you’re not ready for the radical change.
The field is level for CONSUMERS who should have a choice, not “buy me/pay me or FOAD” but instead sample, if you like it, buy it. That’s exactly what IS happening and you didn’t address it, maybe you forgot. It has already been proven that p2p users purchase more than anyone else, both movies and music!
The playing field IS level for indie artists, artists who create and share without the control of labels. Go back 20 years, you could not release anything without going through a label if you wanted wide distribution. That’s no longer an issue, thanks to P2P.
There are options, many options, too many to list and they’ve been mentioned here many times, as well as p2pnet.net and techdirt.
Have you tried having impromptu concerts? Just you, a select number of fans, a public park? No cost for that! And you can charge $15 for ‘tickets’ and the ‘ticket’ is the location, where someone counts, if more show up, concert cancelled, or you could just go with it and have a good time anyhow. Imagine, $1500 to play in front of 100 ppl and that’s all for you! Those people will feel special, you’ll have connected and been paid!
That’s one example, imagine doing that each month? Just one. Now expand that to Cooking with Indianna or Cycling with Indianna or… your core is still music, but you’re expanding the value people receive, thus increasing what they will pay!
~Robert
November 10th, 2009 at 11:25 am
I haven’t seen a CD priced for more than £5 for a good while now. Similarly, it isn’t a matter of price, it’s a question of access and the ‘flow’ of music (which, regardless of the format: MUSIC has absolutely no value unless it is ‘HEARD’.)
You say:
@Robert
Sorry, this is not simply ‘thanks to p2p’. It’s thanks to the internet as a whole. Nonetheless, even 20 years ago, anyone could release an album without a label just the same as anyone can release music now. That has not changed. Labels simply represented the ‘budgets’ that could ‘market’.
Nonetheless, you are completely missing the point. Whether you hate a loaf of bread, you are stuck with it once you eat it (unless it’s sold after it’s sell-by date..lol). If you hate a record, you shouldn’t have bought it. Chances are though, you ‘heard’ that music before you bought it anyway! In fact, there were even ‘listening centres’ in the shops well before the mp3 was invented. Plus, you had radio and television where you heard the music. Or you heard it at a live gig, or you heard it at your mate’s house. How many opportunities do you have to hear music? The value of music is ONLY when you HEAR it. This has always been the case.
Music in the past has always been a form of ’software’ to sell the hardware. CD’s sold cd players, cassettes sold cassette players, etc. Music is still the same. Now, music, film and media happens to be selling you Bigger Bandwidth.
November 10th, 2009 at 1:18 pm
There’s a small flaw in the loaf argument and that is the loaf is a perishable item, where as vehicles or music are not.
It may sound like semantics but when giving analogies it shows how much one really understands a subject.
And while you could record at home in the 80’s on a 4-track, you could not get world-wide distribution like you could with the Internet. And p2p is a greater means of distribution than a website. And even budgets have been reduced by advancements in home recording technology. I’m waiting for the prices of those equipment to go up to subsidize the studios that price themselves out of the market.
My point is, which shows I did not miss, is that with a non-perishable item, I have the choice for a refund! With entertainment I do not, therefore before I go and purchase the latest from U2 or yourself, I would rather sample it and ensure I will derive the charged price for the CD (which only came down in the last few years, not 10 yrs! I have my receipts to prove the CD cost has only dropped in the last 2 years!). If I feel I won’t, then I have no interest in spending the charged money.
Chances are not that you’ve heard it before, or in the case of movies, seen it before, or read it before, especially if it is a new release, which is what we’re focusing on.
Another reason for downloading back-released or previously released material that you may have “heard” before is that you only want one or two tracks. iTunes was NOT available in Canada until 2005/6. When it first came out I went to purchase the singles I wanted, as I only want the single, and was denied. So I downloaded it.
Listening centres were not around when the MP3 was invented, maybe in the UK but not worldwide. Radio and TV only play the music they want to play, not what you want to hear! Try listening to any major radio station and you’ll hear the same songs 7 times a day!
Music was originally not software, it was live performance. People enjoy the live performance more than pre-recorded. Pre-recorded music was only created because technology made it possible and distribution could be greatly enhanced, as you didn’t need to travel all over the world for anyone to hear you, or seat entire countries at your venue of performance.
If you really want to charge by value then you should consider Stephen Colbert’s explanation “I have a hanger full of Miami Sound Machine’s The Rhythm is Gonna Get You albums as I purchase one each time I want to listen to it.”
That’s an intelligent stab at how the public feels the music industry, and any artist who supports the industry’s endeavors to control, wants things to be.
Right now we have a level playing field, level for artists and fans and that’s why we are here!
If instead of demanding a price for a CD or song, mp3 or any format people wanted, you let them have a choice, limited for free, full for a little price, extra’s for more… you’d have more money! You’d have a great connection with your fans by giving them a reason to by, not “buy or else we’ll send you back to the stone age.”
And if an artist starts off with this mantra and switches to “no money no product” they will quickly be dropped by the public. We’re tired of that. We want options, connections with artists, we can choice and say in what and where our money goes!
So if I hate a record, I should be able to return it! If I hate a live show, which is a perishable item, then I’m screwed, but with youtube I don’t have to worry about that now do I?
Again, we’re trying to avoid being screwed into paying for a rehash of the same stuff we didn’t like despite it being sold to us as something new and great.
Indianna, how many films have you been to, without seeing it first, where the preview was the best part? Imagine if you could actually have a say and get some money back? Or return your CD or DVD? Wouldn’t that have a tighter quality control feedback loop?
At least with the feedback loop via returns the labels fans could not claim they download because what’s released is junk, unless it was an open-loop system like it is now, no feedback acknowledged.
Remember, in a closed loop system the feedback is negative and given to the positive input of the system, ‘mixing’ with the positive input, producing a more realistic output. [ I am trying to avoid throwing in control system equations here, but it is really tempting ]
Cheers, no harm meant, no offense meant, just discussions and trying to help you see where we are coming from, just as you are doing the same for us!
November 10th, 2009 at 2:53 pm
@David L:
We’re all here to find a way to make this whole music in the digital age thing work so that everyone’s happy (except maybe the middleman).
The problem I keep seeing on this site is a resistance to the current state of affairs where music files are traded fan-to-fan for zero cost. Making things work is as simple as looking at what’s going on, accepting it, and designing a business model that thrives in that environment. I often get the feeling that what many are trying to do is search for a magical, digital version of Tower Records that will compel people to pay for things they currently get for free.
One thing that’s missing from the current Robert/Indiana exchange is the key difference between digital files and physical objects: replicability. When I take away your loaf, you don’t have it anymore. When somebody shares a file, both people get it. This is the key difference that has completely transformed the entertainment world. The playing field for both artist and fan has been leveled, distribution and duplication has been relegated to anybody with a personal computer.
Many people are redefining their business models to take advantage of this brave new world. The only people losing out are the middlemen and artists who hold on to old ways of thinking.
November 10th, 2009 at 4:15 pm
@SteelWolf “digital files and physical objects: replicability”
I left that out because I was trying to remain on focus, and to me it is a given. I was just trying to help Indianna see where her logic isn’t going to win us over and hopefully she understands that her analogies used won’t work.
We understand where she is coming from and I’m trying to help her understand where we are coming from.
Sometimes though, if you disagree with the copyright/control model, it would appear to some people that you don’t understand where they are coming from. That shows difficulty with understanding the new potential models (which exist and are in use, but because media content is selective to who owns the media, you don’t see it much).
November 10th, 2009 at 4:20 pm
Hi Indiana, welcome to A2F2A and the conversation! Thanks for joining, we’re glad to have you.
I want to clarify a little bit of the conversation in this thread so far that I find confusing. When we talk about Music having Value, what exactly are we talking about? Is it a commodity (a CD, which is an object like a loaf of bread) or is it more of a service (a performance, which is someone baking for you)? Music is really just vibrations in the air, so what part of it is valuable?
I suggest that what has value and PRICE is both music the commodity (the physical objects associated with music) and music the service (the playing of the music), which can both be limited, but that Music the air vibrations cannot be contained or priced.
Indiana, I know how much of your heart and soul you put into your music. You want to be able to make a living by following your passion for music, and we want you be able to do that. In order to do that, you need to be able to earn money somehow, but Music is ephemeral as a concept and so instead you must use the your limited Time, Presence, and Possessions to earn money. Your Time and Presence in performance, recording, and connecting with fans, and Possessions in selling records and merchandise.
The value of music isn’t in WHEN you hear it but in HOW you hear it.
November 10th, 2009 at 4:31 pm
@ 11. Steel Wolf
And part of the problem I keep seeing on this site is a resistance to an sort of compromise. Different people are coming here with different viewpoints; not everyone can be expected to come and accept the situation readily. Change is hard and with the digital world changing so quickly, people can’t be expected to come to terms with it instantly. Personally I believe in digital freedom, but many do not, and in order to build a community I am willing to compromise, as they must as well. We can’t keep taking and taking without any give, it goes both ways.
November 10th, 2009 at 4:42 pm
Well, not really, as Robert points out the distro medium wasn’t there, and the quality you got from the 4 track cassette recorders back then was not even CLOSE to professional quality. I’m speaking from personal experience, as I started multi-track recording with a dual cassette deck, went to a 4-track, and now digitally record onto my computer. I can get professional sounding results from recording on my comp, which could not be achieved on my old TASCAM 4 track.
November 10th, 2009 at 5:02 pm
Precisely which ’share sites’ are making money ?
How much are they ‘making’ ?
Where have you acquired this information ?( yes, the source DOES matter )
Those statements do require proof. I think you are operating incorrectly on an assumption of great sums of money flowing like a river to ’share’ sites, when in fact, the only one that I know of that really is making money is AllofMP3, and THEY PAY THEIR CUT. That’s why they are still around, since they are 100% legal in Russia and pay the collective societies there. So, aside from the money they pull in ( which the labels turn their noses up at ) I ask again … Which Share sites are making money ? How much are they making ?, and please share with us where you got this information.
November 10th, 2009 at 6:55 pm
@Robert : When you subscribe to the 40GB/ month deal, you are simply buying music and film in a ‘new’ format (e.g.: internet). ISPs are selling you entertainment. Nothing is stopping you from ‘trying’ music before you buy it. There are plenty of music streaming sites and networks where you can hear music before you download it whether you pay for the download or whether you make the decision to ‘copy’. And either way, once you’ve heard it, that’s the point of consumption. Why would you go to iTunes and buy an mp3 that you already have obtained for free? Likewise, why would people buy music that they can stream on demand or download it for free?
Has someone told you that they won’t give you a refund for your used mp3’s? (jus’ kiddin’) I’m kind of confused by some of your comments here about being able to return a product if you don’t like it. You can’t ‘return’ your tickets to the opera or a play after you’ve seen it just because you didn’t like it. You can’t get your money back for a gig that you didn’t like either. Normally, you can’t get your money back for a pair of trainers after you have worn them either.
I don’t understand the “Miami Sound Machine in the Hangar” scenario. I’m unaware of any service that asks people to pay for music every time they listen to it. (Although, in some of our negotiations with the major labels over the past couple years, there have been mentions of ‘limiting’ the number of times people can play the same track in any given month. which is absolutely crazy).
You also cannot return your Broadband subscription after you’ve used your bandwidth. But, broadband is selling you entertainment. (They openly advertise this fact). That’s what Broadband and high speed internet is about. It’s about selling you media. You don’t buy 40GB broadband subscriptions because you need to send a few emails. You buy it to access media. Increased bandwidth equals more movies, more music, etc. You pay your broadband bill every month, right?
@SteelWolf: There really is no reason why a public license for websites shouldn’t exist. We’re all fully aware that digital objects are replicable. At Kerchoonz (which is in beta development), we pay artists when their music is streamed from the advertising generated onsite. Artists will be able to choose to either sell their downloads (or, they can give their music away for free and still get a cut from the ad-revenue). The artist sets the price. They can sell their concert tickets and merch and they will also have access to the fans who consume/ use their tracks. And, if they want to, they can also sell cds or USB keys with their tracks. It’s a direct exchange between the artists and their fans. Our business model is based upon the principal of ’sharing’ with the artists.
IMO, when a website uses music or media to drive traffic and generate revenue, that music is accessed and being ‘used’. It’s is similar to your cable bill, if you don’t like a program, it is still part of your monthly bill. If you don’t watch a program, you still pay the same bill. With ISPs, if you don’t use your 40GB, you still pay the same bill. ISPs are selling you music, film, media, etc. and Websites & P2p networks are like ‘broadcasters’ of that media.
November 10th, 2009 at 7:51 pm
” Sorry, this is not simply ‘thanks to p2p’. It’s thanks to the internet as a whole. Nonetheless, even 20 years ago, anyone could release an album without a label just the same as anyone can release music now. That has not changed. Labels simply represented the ‘budgets’ that could ‘market’. ”
I don’t know where you were 20 years ago,but I myself was in my playing prime, and while yes. you could MAKE a CD if the band pitched in for studio time but all of the marketing angles were sewn up by the labels. No label, no airplay. No label, no shelf space etc . Like Monkey, I started on cassette dubbing, moved to a Fostex portable 4 track, then a portastudio. We do know a bit about the business 20 years ago .. we were there.
Many of us here were. Personally we cared more about making music than ‘budgets’ and ‘markets’. If only I were 28 again. I would already have the bands’ songs on the web .. for free. If they were good enough, I KNOW fans would pay. Not everyone, but if the quality was there, they would .. just like they do now.
In order for compromise to happen, everyone needs the truth, not misconceptions or outright falsehoods .. I am NOT saying that you, personally, Indiana, are being false, but I think you have been fed a lot of false information. Hopefully we can point you to where you can find the facts for yourself .. I don’t honestly expect you or anyone else to just take our words for it.
November 10th, 2009 at 9:06 pm
@Dreddsnik
I think she see’s torrent sites with ads and thinks because they have ads they are generating a profit. It’s an honest mistake people who don’t understand bandwidth costs can make. I would guess most of those sites break even and some lose money. TPB was immensely popular, MAYBE they make some money but being that popular I’m sure their expenses are high.
November 11th, 2009 at 8:35 am
Monkey D. Luffy Says:
I also noticed that my comment on precisely which sites and how she gained that info was the one that was ignored by her.I HOPE it’s because she is fact-checkingIndiana Gregg Says:
According to the labels, downloading is causing them to CD sales. In nearly all locations where music CD’s are sold, they can’t be returned if you are not satisfied with your purchase, which can happen when out of the entire CD, the only 2 quality tracks are the ones that were in constant rotation ( in order to sell the CD ), the rest were ‘unsatisfying’ . The right of fair return has been removed from CD’s and DVD’s in the name of ‘piracy’. People are no longer willing to pay for a CD only to discover they don’t like the rest of the tracks, and can’t return it. I hope THAT clarifies it.
Because they enjoy and wish to support the artists, just like they have been doing since before file sharing appeared, in the days when blank cassettes and a borrowed CD did the trick. Statistical and anecdotal proof show this to be true. If the fans like it they will buy it, file sharing has ZERO impact on sales ( oberholzer/strumpf study ).If your fans really enjoy your work, why would’t they ? Why do you assume that your fans are as dishonest as your label ? Now why haven’t you taken the time to answer MY questions ? To refresh …
Precisely which ’share sites’ are making money ?
How much are they ‘making’ ?
Where have you acquired this information ?.
I’d like to know if your information is based solely on what your label tells you ?
November 11th, 2009 at 8:45 am
@Indianna,
No, actually I don’t subscribe to an Internet Service for “entertainment” that they are “selling” me. I actually subscribe to Internet Service for access to INFORMATION! Some people put up movies, some sites direct you to places you can download music or movies, some sites stream music. But many sites provide news about what is going on in the world or resources to help you learn programming or solve that math problem or find out a view of some point in history.
I think you’re looking at the Internet like the labels do, a means to sell entertainment and only entertainment. That’s not what it is for. It is nothing more than a globalized network. Computers talking to computers and the people operating those computers put up information to be shared. That might include music, or pictures, but it also includes news and a many other things.
“Why would you go to iTunes and buy an mp3 that you already obtained for free?” This is where you are wrong. You logic seems plausible but humans are not purely logical. We go to iTunes or the store or the movies to pay for it because we enjoy it! Some refuse to pay because of the criminalization of consumers. Others would never pay anyhow, so their download doesn’t count as a loss of sale. And the majority of file sharers actually buy their stuff afterwards! Why? Because they enjoy it and want to keep the art coming!
And you CAN return something you don’t like. If I buy a pair of shoes that I do not enjoy after first trying, I CAN return them. If I buy a new U2 CD and think “this sucks ass” after a single listen, I CANNOT return it for a refund! I can with the shoes! You can’t with undergarments or bathing suits but that’s for hygenic reasons. You can’t with perishable items you’ve already eaten but again those have been contaminated by your consumption. CD’s and DVD’s are NOT perishable and should be returnable.
I realize my posts are long, but you repeated what I already said about live performances, so maybe you missed that part. The Miami Sound Machine comment you made… maybe you could reread, slowly, my post again?
Broadband subscriptions are NOT for entertainment! Get that straight right now, they are for access to INFORMATION. If you keep saying this, others will believe it, and you can forget about cooking recipes shared for free or news reported with out corporate spin or wikipedia articles on history or math or online tutorials for free. You can kiss it all goodbye in favour of entertainment (aka whatever some corporation wants you to buy) and guess what, if they don’t like you Indianna, you’re not going to be available either!
So it is NOT about selling you media, it is about giving you access to a globalized network and letting YOU choose what YOU want to do; programming, fixing your car, watching movies, checking the weather, buying CD’s, buying magnets, reading what’s going on in Afghanistan from an Afghan’s point of view, etc…
In short:
1) CD’s/DVD’s/MP3’s purchased should be returnable, they are not perishable like live performances
2) The Internet is NOT a medium for selling entertainment, it is a means of accessing information, which some choose to use as a means of selling entertainment, but that is NOT the primary focus!
3) The Internet is open for YOU to choose what information YOU want to access!
4) If you don’t like a particular cable show, you change the channel, if you don’t like the station, you SHOULD BE ABLE TO CANCEL THAT STATION, but like you, the cable companies try to sell you entertainment — the INTERNET IS NOT ENTERTAINMENT!
Please read all points carefully, don’t scan if you intend to reply, that only generates more comments back and forth and neither has the time for that. Scan, if you want to comment, re-read the comment/article carefully before commenting.
November 11th, 2009 at 12:48 pm
I’ll preface this comment with two items: first, it’s great to have you talking in this space Indiana – your comments and thoughts are welcome. Second, I feel gross putting this argument forward; I disagree with it, but I think that it’s something that should be addressed in an explicit manner. Perhaps a small point of consensus of this very particular point could be generated…
My primary academic focus surrounds telecommunications companies and the ways that they monitor and (potentially) modify the data streams of their consumers, citizens. These networks are incredibly expensive to build, with billions of dollars a year pouring into their infrastructure. In Canada, Bell Canada is responsible for carrying a massive amount of Canadians’ data traffic and Bell, along with other dominant ISPs, have been spending millions upon millions of dollars on network devices to ‘throttle’, or delay, the data traffic for particular Internet protocols. P2P protocols are widely targeted across Canada. It should also be noted that most of Canadian’s largest ISPs are also content carriers – they sell digital music, movies, TV shows, are our TV and Cable suppliers, providers of satellite access, etc. Canadian ISPs are investing exorbitant amounts of money to establish ‘preferred media streams’ insofar as you can immediately access some content (provided by the ISP, and monetized so that rights holders receive revenue) or get delayed access to content (through throttling). ISPs are already spending massive amounts of money to establish preferred entertainment streams – why should they be expected to pay a tax off of their net profits, when they are already massively investing in capital infrastructure to encourage their customers towards already monetized streams? In the words of a telco executive who’s name will remain anonymous ‘why do ISPs have to bail out a business who just can’t figure out its revenue model? Times change, and it’s not the ISPs’ fault that rights holders haven’t figured out how to change with the times’
(As noted at the outset, there are issues with the argument, and I’m paraphrasing as best as I can, but it would be good to talk through this briefly in the hopes of identifying:
(a) do ISPs have a responsibility to be ‘taxed’ for media (this has, in part, been addressed previously; ISPs and many consumers alike would respond ‘no’);
(b) if the response to (a) is ‘yes’, then is the present massive capital expenditure effectively that ‘tax’ already, in terms of providing preferred content steams;
(c) if there is a stance that ISPs need to relay money more directly to rights holders, then what are their responsibilities towards the provision of digital networks to consumers – do they sell packages where data transfers are ‘taxed’ to kick some money to rights holders? (I can assure you that, in Canada, ANY tax will IMMEDIATELY be passed along to consumers – there are several particularly nasty fights going on about this very issue.)
(d) if targeting ISPs, what metric is used to ensure that the tax on net profits is fairly distributed? Given how accessible and (at least on the first read) reasonable the privacy policy at kerchoonz is, I assume (hope?) that massively surveying what consumers do with their broadband connections is off the table…
November 11th, 2009 at 1:31 pm
Why buy an mp3 from iTunes that you obtained for free? You wouldn’t. That’s the whole point. Like it or not, mp3s ARE free, and business models that try and treat them as a scarcity are bound to remain little more than a convenience. You need to start thinking beyond the idea that tracks are something you can continue selling after the first time if you want to design a viable modern business model.
p2p sharing is not a means of making money, regardless of what the labels want you to believe. They are vibrant communities of people passionate about a topic and devoted to sharing freely available information with each other and the world. The internet made information free. Trying to tie it up in artificial scarcities because that was the way to make money in the past isn’t going to work.
November 12th, 2009 at 8:26 am
@robert, it sounds like you are agreeing with me… since’the news’ is also ‘media’ and it’s often in the format of ‘rich media’ (e.g. Sky News: videos). etc.
The labels aren’t trying to persuade me about how much ‘bandwidth’ cost’s @Dresdnik. Trust that I have a clue about that one, I run a social network and fully understand the cost of bandwidth… but, p2p doesn’t require the same kind of bandwidth because they don’t ‘host’ the files. So, in theory, it should be even easier for a p2p site to generate advertising revenues. Who are you trying to fool here kids?
November 12th, 2009 at 8:28 am
The reason why it is currently difficult for p2p to gernerat ad revenues, however, is due to it’s somewhat ‘illegitimate’ status both in the past and at the moment…(but, I do address that in the post that I sent to Jon).
November 12th, 2009 at 9:25 am
‘Argument from Authority’ is a logical fallacy. I know something about bandwidth too, as do many others. This fallacy does not answer my questions. once again they are …
Precisely which ’share sites’ are making money ?
How much are they ‘making’ ?
Where have you acquired this information ?.
You have made a claim. All i asked is for you to back it with citable facts, not logical fallacies. If you have no citable data on which to base that claim, then it is an opinion, and how is it right to base legal policy on opinion ?
Also, once again, the first side of the debate to turn to ad-hominem is the Artist side of the debate. I gave you no ‘cheek’ I asked an honest question. If you want to know who is trying to fool who, ask the ISP’s that are claiming that p2p uses so much bandwidth that they NEED to throttle because of network congestion. Someone is definitely trying to fool someone. Besides, I didn’t ask about bandwidth. You’re deflecting me to a different direction and not addressing the questions that I really asked.
Can you answer my three questions or not ?
November 12th, 2009 at 11:04 am
Indiana,
The internet is primarily about communication, person to person. The fact that what you call “media” got involved is secondary.
What previous posters have been saying is that p2p sites that do make money through ad revenue put it directly into hosting the site. The idea that sites are making tons of money is false. In fact, many of the best sites are supported entirely by user donations, or selling things like shirts.
November 12th, 2009 at 1:01 pm
maybe this post will answer some of the questions you guys are asking. maybe not.
@Dreddsnik, I answered your question in the other post. Basically, which sites are making money? In 2008, around $45 billion was generated on the web via ‘advertising’. Does that make sense?
Otherwise, another example would be the TPB case. But, it’s sufficient to see that sites are serving ads and generating income. It’s also obvious that it costs less to run a p2p network than it does a traditional site serving the same media simply because a the files are not hosted on the operators servers.
Hope that answers your question. (As I stated in the other thread, I didn’t understand why you would be asking me which sites on the web make money).
November 12th, 2009 at 1:03 pm
ok, here’s how I see an alternative to three-strikes which may address some of @ Christopher Parsons points, but, not all of them. Obviously the costs to the telecoms for throttling wouldn’t be necessary under my ‘theory’ of a potential solution or compromise: http://a2f2a.com/2009/11/12/woman-at-work-part-ii/
November 12th, 2009 at 4:27 pm
” Hope that answers your question. (As I stated in the other thread, I didn’t understand why you would be asking me which sites on the web make money). ”
No it doesn’t and you know it.
Telling me what I already know, that AS A WHOLE $45 billion was generated on web advertising, but that does not address the premise you put forward, or my question, about which specific sites are you saying are rolling in the dough off of copyright infringement. I didn’t ask how much revenue ads generate for the entire web.
I am asking you specifically which web sites are you saying are profiting off of you and your contemporaries, and where is your proof ? Everyone else seems to understand the question.
November 12th, 2009 at 8:27 pm
The premise I put forward? OK, websites that use music and generate revenue? There are thousands upon thousands. Myspace, Youtube, Google itself, TPB (this list could go on forever.)
November 13th, 2009 at 12:25 am
And of course, none of those sites would be anywhere without music industry “product.” Please.
I direct you to an excellent article pointing out that the success of sites like Google has absolutely nothing to do with music or any other “intellectual property.”