Yesterday, we introduced Indiana Gregg, an indie artist with strong views.
Here’s part II — her thoughts on the world of music in the 21st digital century.
She slugs her post an Artist’s View >>>
Synopsis:
Three Strikes if passed will be a costly way of trying to ‘educate’ the public. Whether you agree with the following ideas or not, there will be great sums of ‘money’ involved in the implementation and enforcement such a ruling. Inevitably, costs the ISPs will incur with Three Strikes and the projected costs government plans to spend upon its enforcement will ultimately trickle down to the ISP customer and the taxpayer.
Since most ISP customers are also taxpayers, the public may end up paying twice. So, please, before ruling out the possibility of a two-pronged approach Public License + ISP levies, bear in mind the alternative. The Three Strikes + Law Suits route will be MUCH more costly, inefficient and at best, ineffective.
Background: The Music 2.0 World Currently:
At the moment (as in the past), the major music labels are licensing their catalogues to music services by territory. In the UK alone, the advances payable to the labels equate to roughly a million pounds once advances, legal fees and integration are paid in order to license the four major catalogues. Once the money has been transferred to the labels, the website can offer the music as a stream and/or downloads. If a site wants to allow downloads, the going rate paid to the labels is around 50p per download and around a penny per stream, which are accrued against the advances until the well dries up. (This does not include publishing royalties the site must pay subsequently which in the UK is approx 0.22p per stream or 8% of wholesale price 4p).
For a music service to offer music legitimately (paying the rights holders), the service needs to raise millions if it wants to play ball globally. In many cases, labels even ask for advances if a service proposes to simply ’sell’ their catalogue.
If a fan isn’t allowed to access content because it hasn’t been released in their country yet and a fan isn’t allowed to purchase it either due to territorial restrictions, P2P becomes the only way for a fan to access it. For artists, this scenario isn’t great because it means their music can only be legitimately accessed in certain territories. Basically, the three components artist/label, fan and services all three become ‘limited’ in what they can offer and what can be accessed with these kinds of territorial restrictions well before the argument of ‘free’ versus ‘paid for’ comes into the equation.
Prong One: Introducing A Public License
Imagine if every radio station paid labels an ‘advance’ before they were allowed to help ‘popularize’ their music with airplay. At the moment, record labels actually pay people to plug music to radio. They spend a fortune wining & dining Radio 2 programmers and producers. Here comes the Internet and suddenly, the major labels want ‘advances’ from internet ‘broadcasters’ (websites)? It’s crazy. They also want money up front if you plan to sell their music for them on-line. Likewise, record labels pay PR companies to get media coverage for their artists. Now, record companies want paid for the same type of promotion they used to pay people to do. So, what’s the sketch?
Could a public license for the use of music on the Internet perhaps benefit artists, songwriters and potentially all media? Since the nature of the web is indeed ‘global’, it seems necessary and ultimately inevitable a license be put into place to cover the ‘internet’ as a whole or as ‘one territory’ globally.
Because the major music labels control the majority of the music is being consumed, they are in a position to ask for whatever they want. This means ‘legitimate’ music services have absolutely no negotiation leverage, which in turn means many of these services will likely never be viable without some form of subscription model. So, here you have the ‘free P2P model’ versus ’subscription’ services.
Since most internauts can work under the guise of a proxy IP or VPN, cutting off access by territory is nonsensical. For this very reason alone, enforcing a Three Strikes policy isn’t only costly, but also technically impossible without an Internet re-design and a personal ID system (or Internet passport.) We could by-pass this type of negative legislation through a public license.
Business Viability for ‘Legal’ services:
These financial and territorial limitations have resulted in many legitimate services having to close their doors before ever truly getting off the ground. They face raising millions in capital in order to reach a global community in an extremely risky economic climate. Without some form of workable legislation and consideration by the copyright tribunal and/or government with regard to the use of music on the net, artists end up in a limbo situation making it difficult for them to earn a living or know where their fanbase is in order to
tour.
Some music services hope to legitimately pay artists; however, depending upon the type of deal the labels have with their artists, it’s uncertain ‘advances’ paid to the labels actually trickle down to the artists.
On top of the advances paid to the labels, the service must also obtain licenses from the publishing rights authorities in each territory (eg PRS/MCPS, Gema, Ascap, BMI, etc). Once again, these advances are against projected streams (or downloads) in order to cover the publishing aspects of the copyright
After a lot of hard work, red tape and legal fees for the sake of being a ‘legitimately’ recognized legal download and/or streaming service, current copyright legislation combined with demands of the major label advances are effectively limiting the possibilities for those artists to be heard and compensated. ( A public license would erase those limitations.)
Whether a service is considered legitimate or not, the result is the same for the ‘fan’ who obtains an mp3 either by stream or download. And in both cases, it’s noset certain whether the artists themselves benefit. Independent artists who are compensated directly by the legitimate services, however, do benefit via direct compensation because there is no middleman. How will Three Strikes legislation change any of this? (Answer: It won’t.)
In either situation, we all must agree an mp3 is the same whether it’s from a bit torrent client, itunes, or amazon.mp3. In simple terms, whether it’s on demand or not, streams or downloads, youtube, myspace or P2P, it’s all the same. Websites are broadcasters of media. When a site uses media to attract traffic whether we’re talking a search engine, a network, or even a blog, it’s essentially a broadcaster. Fans tune in and consume the media. Solution: Prong one = License Internet Broadcasters.
Public license = Legalization of P2P
Introducing Websites as Broadcasters
Rather than dividing the legitimate (‘advance’ paying) services and the P2P services into two camps, we could initiate a public license, which could level the playing field. Here’s where a global compulsory (or public) license comes into play. (Global meaning: ‘for use on the net’)
The Internet needs a Compulsory public license for Music (and potentially all media). This would enable websites to calculate their margins and contributions. Rather than oppressing artistic culture by penalizing ‘fans’ of media, such a license would stimulate and compensate creators. Currently, the music industry is banking cash advances in exchange for a very limited number of legitimate services.
Why not create a public license for media covers everything across the board? Why not consider websites as broadcasters just like radio or television regardless of the type of service being provided. An mp3 is an mp3 whether streamed, downloaded, shared, copied, etc? Trying to differentiate one mp3 from another simply due to access format or the type of service being accessed is absurd. (Format meaning ‘on demand’, ’stream’, ‘download’, etc.)
Mandelson’s ‘3 strikes and the fan gets beheaded’ game plan is bound to be a costly endeavour which is impossible to enforce. Sending warning letters which supposedly will also help ‘educate’ people on how to protect their wireless connections sounds extremely naïve from a government who wants to be considered ‘innovative’. The plan reeks of negativity and is an extension of the RIAA’s previous lawsuits against its fanbase. Mandelson is shifting the focus to ISPs penalising customers. (Presumably this is meant to take the music industry off of the ‘hot seat’ for a while?)
A public license may mean the labels and societies will have to lose a bit of their copyright control, however, such a license would in return create a potential for creators to score on a massive and unprecedented scale regardless of whether the artist/band is independent or signed to a major. Widening the level of distribution and use and spreading the license to all forms of use on the net, a public license for websites as broadcasters could have a massive effect upon the flow of media.
All licensed sites would be deemed ‘legitimate’ and whether it’s P2P, a music service, or a social network, all would benefit and potentially become viable, and the P2P sites would no longer be considered ‘infringers’ this would allow them to boost their advertising revenues and increase profitability as the taboo of ‘illegal’ became lifted.
Theoretically, all services would contribute based upon the traffic and consumption of media flowing through their service. This can be monitored fairly easily. The license would obviously impose play counters for streams and downloads. (seeds, leeches, etc.) All music (globally) would be covered under the license regardless of status (major label, independent or unsigned.) However, sites would report to the license regulating bodies of their territory/ country. Artists and songwriters would register their music with the appropriate collection societies for their territory or opt for direct payment from the sites/services. At the moment, all deemed ‘legitimite’ sites are already subject to paying these collection societies anyway. The machinery dating back to the 1930’s for collection is already in place but the societies model needs an upgrade. This boils down to the copyright tribunal and competent government legislation.
***** Please be aware currently in the scenario where you’re the artist and you’re also the sole songwriter and are on your own label and you decide to give away 100,000 FREE downloads of YOUR song, written solely by you, on your label, the PRS in the UK and similarly abroad will require you to pay them approx 2.5p for each free download you wish to give away of your wholly owned copyright simply because you have asked them to collect royalties on your behalf.
In fact, as the owner, if you wish to give it away free and don’t wish them to collect anything on your behalf, you legally cannot. If you don’t pay them this amount to give your music away free, you (the artist/songwriter label) are breaking the law.
Now who is looking after whom? In reality, an artist is allowing their music to be available on a P2P site and not paying the societies for these ‘free’ downloads IS essentially breaking the law, just as much as the downloader is considered to be breaking the law.
The societies are much more intransigent than the major labels, which is overlooked by most, (a reality which is slowly becoming evident as more and more of them around the world try to force hairdressers, school cafeterias, bars, doctors and dentists, to pay monthly music licensing fees). Their existence in the digital world with archaic views and contracts based in the 1930’s (talkies, movies, etc) is WAY another discussion.
Tell me folks, when will they sue their first artist? Would Trent Reznor perhaps be the first candidate? Maybe start out soft and cut off his internet or something for allowing this gratuitous breech of archaic copyright? How ludicrous!? So, just like the ice men in Sweden had to stop cutting ice due to the ‘fridge’ as Peter Sunde (TPB) and Rick Falkvinge (Pirate Party Sweden) put it so eloquently, perhaps the societies might think about revisiting their business model just like every other internet business seems to be obligated to do these days on a ‘monthly’ basis.
The ISPs: The Second Prong
What are they really selling and what do you use Broadband for?
OK, check this out: http://www.broadband-finder.co.uk/broadband-information/broadband-usage-levels.html
Here it’s straight from the ISP horses mouth: ‘What do I get for 10GB? 20GB? 40GB?’
Answer: They tell you straight up in terms of music & film downloads exactly what you get.
For example: 40GB/ month gets you the following:
Hours spent browsing (per day) – 24 hours
Emails sent & received (per day) – 1500
Music downloads (per month) – 340 tracks
Video downloads (per month) – 9 hours
Software updates / downloads (per month) – 24 hours
Break it down. What’s the big one in this list? Are most people using their broadband to send and receive 1500 emails? How many GB is worth? Hang on here, but, you can download 340 tracks. (Of course, everyone is paying 99 cents /track on iTunes right? Ummm. NOT. )
So, isn’t it rather obvious? The second contributor to the compensation of music and media SHOULD be the ISPs themselves. You know, you’re paying for it anyway. That’s what they’ve sold you, right?
Now, this levy on the ISPs could (but not necessarily) inadvertently focus some of the responsibility onto the ‘fans’ want to ‘try before they buy’. But, realistically, how much would a levy on ISPs actually cost the users? In theory, a levy absolutely SHOULDN’T raise the price of your broadband at all. Why? Because they’ve been selling you service already!
The ISPs and Telecoms are expanding rapidly even during a global recession. The telecoms generate huge revenues and turn over massive profits. We all pay for access.
Without question, a portion of their profits should be allocated to the media creators. What does broadband get you? What are they really selling us? (Answer: Media, Music, Film)
However, strangely enough, the reason why the ISP levy idea isn’t being pushed forward and a Three Strikes is, could be the government is already trying to initiate a broadband tax to stuff somebody’s pockets: http://www.broadband-finder.co.uk/news/broadband/broadband-tax-is-unjust-and-regressive_19440993.html
A levy on the ISPs and mobile phone networks towards compensating creators would allow a passage of ‘free culture’ on the Internet whereby piracy and copyright infringement could become obsolete. Essentially,t his would mean P2P could exist without being ‘demonised’. In fact, it just might even thrive.
Simply put, a levy could come out of the ISP’s profits based upon the percentage of Internet traffic is used for the consumption of media content (music, film, software, press). Ofcom regulated of course since we have a situation where the ISPs are teaming up with the labels (the Virgin media and Universal deal for example).
Again, collection would need to be monitored and distribution of these funds would need to be handled by the collection societies and allocated based upon the consumption reports from all websites who contribute to the ‘public license’ described above in prong one in order to prevent ‘blanket’ licensing problems and the ‘black boxes’ of the past. In the digital world, accountability shouldn’t be a problem.
Since this would be a two-pronged approach (services and websites + ISPs contributing), theoretically some would argue this kind of levy should never raise the cost of broadband to the consumer. In theory, fixed costs are spread over more customers as the rate of broadband expands, so, prices could even fall and this kind of levy would have minimum impact. In fact, legislation like Three Strikes is more likely to raise costs than an ISP levy would.
If every ISP has to comply with the levy, there would be just as much competition between services as there is now. This cost simply has to be factored in and if the levy is taken out of net profits, it’s not such a huge ordeal especially since the media industries are a huge force behind why people want bigger bandwidth. The ISPs need the thriving media industries. (Not everyone likes watching babies giggling on youtube.) Quality does still matter. Plus, it’s all about ‘the need for speed’. Let’s face it, you don’t really need broadband for email and blog reading folks. You need it to stream, download and access rich media. You can chat with friends without the need for high-speed internet. It’s rich media content sells broadband upgrades.
Feasibility Of The Two-Pronged Approach?
So you ask: Is a two-pronged system like this technically possible?
Of course it is. Each service reports to its respective society by territory. Each ISP is regulated by territory. Globally, the license is the same across the board. Internauts access all media regardless of territory. Labels would be forced to treat the Internet as ‘one’ territory rather than dividing the net through the same physical territorial licensing practices of the past.
Would this kind of a system potentially help reduce the power of monopolies?
Yes, if regulated and constructed via a checks-and-balances system. Fans could still help artists by buying tickets to live gigs, buying merchandise, donating etc, but, the real power they would have would be to freely listen without being demonised by the recording and publishing industries. Artists and songwriters could potentially track their progress and cross-check the stats to make sure their isn’t a ‘black box’ scenario. This may require an open-accounting system, but, why not? It would render the application of traditional ‘copyright’ to the web as obsolete with exception of commercial use. Likewise, why not?
What role would government play? Perhaps putting measures together to ensure the system is regulated properly through subsidies and the implementation of these types of innovations. Rather than spending money penalizing file-sharers, they could be using resources to work with both new and established services during the transition. Subscription models would and could still be viable (after all, they existed during ‘piracy’ before, why would this change anything. If people like a premium service for the added perks, they are still likely pay for them.)
What P2P asks of artists in the current climate:
At the moment, the general consensus from P2P advocates is asking artists to be buskers, dependent upon a donation button when their music is being ‘used’ all over the web whether it’s via P2P or any social network or website.
Many P2P users expect bands and artists to produce recordings for free use. They ask artists furthermore to raise the money to tour and gig (without tour support because their music was free) and consequently ask them to base their entire livelihood upon T-shirts and merchandise. All this in the name of ‘try before you buy’.
Nobody needs to waste another breathe on whether a download would equal a ‘lost’ sale or not. It doesn’t matter whether you’re talking about a stream or a download; they are both the SAME thing. Neither one has any value until the music being accessed is ‘heard’ or ‘used’. Once you access music, you’re 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. You don’t tell the gas board you plan to try out their service beforehand. The moment you’re listening, you’re consuming.
How is an artist expected to break-even when potentially thousands or even millions of people have ‘used’ their music. Likewise, asking them to sell CD’s at gigs won’t be an option for much longer. Who needs more plastic when you have a 80GB hard drive stores zillions of songs? Young bands won’t want to deal with the manufacturing cost when it’s unlikely they will make a return on them since transferring the data onto a computer to eventually get the music onto your ipod is such a pain. The truth be told, if the goal of being a musician is being pushed towards how many t-shirts you can sell in order to finance your next gig, what’s the point? It already takes years for most artists to get a ‘break’. Now, once they do, they’re expected to beg and sell more t-shirts after they’ve toured, promoted, raised marketing investment, gotten radio play, press, and generated loads of illegitimate downloads? The message this sends: ‘ Raise capital and create a T-shirt factory and busk the underground and city parks on the weekends.’
It’s likewise unfair to expect songwriters (who in many cases aren’t performing artists) to live off of fresh air. Some of the most talented vocalists in the world simply have no talent for writing songs. Likewise, some of the best songwriters aren’t vocalists or performers. Non-performing Songwriters are rarely mentioned in any of the arguments have been put forward in this debate oddly enough. Where does the land lie for them in the current situation? Not to mention Session players will no longer have session work because there would be no money to finance recordings use session players. So, in this new age of digital, are we going to simply forget about hiring live orchestras to play on recordings because they’re too expensive?
Leaving P2P to stand as it is without some form of license or compromise is a non-starter. Strangely enough, the current proposals by government in the form of Three Strikes won’t help any of these scenarios either. A public license alongside a levy on ISPs would. It’s a question of moving the money that would be spent on Three Strikes towards something actually could help the parties involved. A license and levy would be more proactive whereas Three Strikes is clearly destructive and involves money being spent frivolously with potentially little or no effectiveness generated.
Conclusion:
A public license combined with a levy on the ISPs could create an eco-system whereby artists and fans could have their cake and eat it too. It could also create a more viable system for music services, P2P and even record labels or ‘investors’ in music and media.
The current situation simply does not work for anybody and a Three Strikes motion is likely to create more bitterness between fans of music and the creative industries.
A public license could help solve the ‘Rubiks cube’- as I call it. Because there are at least 8-sides to this -and that’s before you get to the whole ‘live side’-
You have:
1)performing artists
2) songwriters,
3)societies who collect on the behalf of the performers and/or songwriters
4) labels and/or investors
5)ISPs and Telecoms
6)Websites & Broadcasters
7)session musicians
8 ) Producers/engineers/studios
The primary focus of the ‘cube’ and their very existense being ‘the fans’ or ‘the consumers’.
So, please, before you decide to blindly pretend P2P is currently leveling the playing field, try to take a look at the ‘rubiks cube’ from all sides.
“Solving this requires having an understanding of each side,” says Indiana, adding:
“If we’re unable to come up with an organized, fair and logical alternative to what governments are currently proposing, we’ll inevitably remain in a position where governments jump in and things like Three Strikes are put into motion, opening up a can of worms which will ultimately lead to more more agressive legislation.”
tour.’
November 12th, 2009 at 1:26 pm
Neither one of those options is attractive in the least. Instead of looking for external “solutions” to a problem that doesn’t exist, why not force yourself to look beyond 20th century business models to something that will actually work today? Time and time again the commenters on this site make suggestions and ask questions and yet I keep seeing posts like this supporting blanket welfare plans for an obsolete business model. I thought we were trying to point out the new models, not continually rehash the failed record industry plans to force all and sundry to buy their “product.”
November 12th, 2009 at 3:22 pm
@steelwolf, this isn’t a blanket welfare program. You are denying that music is being used & ‘broadcasted’ more on the internet than anywhere else? In this scenario, it would mean music would be basically ‘free’ for fans. It would cut out this idea where musicians were selling their music, but, would allow use of their recordings. I don’t see that as a welfare plan. Musician’s would still have to ‘work’ to be heard, etc. The same would apply to film, news & information, etc.
Your alternative is three-strikes.
November 12th, 2009 at 4:05 pm
just a note. Theoretically, this would apply to ‘all media’ (e.g. everybody who creates media and/or information on the web) so, let’s say @SteelWolf has a blog and you run it and generate traffic and people like it and read your news or watch your media. You would be rewarded a small bit for the use of your creation, etc.
If you are a website that relies on using other people’s media, you would pay a license fee for it which would be calculated based upon the number of times it was accessed. If you aren’t using other people’s works, you wouldn’t pay the license fee at all.
November 12th, 2009 at 4:21 pm
“his isn’t a blanket welfare program.”
Yes, it is.
” You are denying that music is being used & ‘broadcasted’ more on the internet than anywhere else? ”
And you are denying the fact that none of this hurts the sales of CD’s or individual tracks in places like itunes on little bit. Any monies paid in the form of a levy benefit only the Labels and a few artists at the top of the food chain.
@steelwolf ” I thought we were trying to point out the new models, not continually rehash the failed record industry plans to force all and sundry to buy their “product.” ”
WE are.
It appears that we are the only ones willing to see a future, and not use the law as a lead pipe to the knees in order to preserve the status quo of a select few.
November 12th, 2009 at 5:46 pm
@Indiana:
(Part 1)
Before I begin, I want to get a few important things straight, in order to establish a foundation, which I’ll elaborate on next…
1. By definition, a cube can only have 6 SIDES!
It doesn’t matter if it’s a “Rubik’s Cube”, “Rubik’s Revenge” or any other cubic creation – it’s still a cube.
Just had to get that one out, as it was bothering me.
2. The Internet is NOT a “broadcast medium”, period.
The corporate world keeps trying to pronounce it one, doing everything they think they have to, in order to “make” it one, as that would benefit THEM greatly. Don’t allow yourself to be “educated” by this kind of constant spin.
Information is “pulled” by the user accessing it. Even an internet radio service doesn’t put the music “over the wire” for people to “tune into”. The closest thing to being considered a “broadcast” that happens on the Internet could be either a mass e-mail (to multiple recipients) or a torrent share, but that’s still stretching it, as everyone in the process needs to still “pull” what they want from it all.
Throughout it all, everyone pays for the bandwidth with which to do this. Nobody is centrally “powering” the infinite transmissions, and no public “airwaves” or public “signals”, virtual or otherwise, actually exist over the Internet.
The Internet is a virtual product, formed by the cooperation of every piece of equipment that is volunteering at any particular time to connect with the collective. Providers make up a fraction of this total.
Without ISPs, there can actually still be an internet, however, without the rest, there would literally be no internet, as nobody would be forming one.
3. We’re not here to justify or “legalize” filesharing.
Filesharing is not, and never was, “illegal”. And, as you’ve acknowledged, it can’t be controlled, outlawed, stopped, whatever.
4. “3 Strikes” is an ill-advised and foolhardy idea that goes against more moral, technical, and legal conventions than the filesharing it’s supposed to cure. It’s a separate argument that we (the P2P community), in no way, will accept as being some forced “alternative” to other proposed “compensation” schemes.
November 12th, 2009 at 6:05 pm
@Indiana:
(Part 2)
Now, as for rest of it…
There’s nothing wrong with your concept itself, but I’m afraid you lost me at “ISP levy”, which is unfortunately the “be-all and end-all” of the entire scheme. (Without it, the rest crumbles.)
What you’ve described is not the first time such a thing has been proposed. And every such proposal always fails to address the many problems such a levy brings to the table with it. Some of these problems already exist with current forms of “royalty” or “performance” collection:
1. How do you keep the cost from being passed on to the internet subscribers?
ISPs will not have it that way, and we can’t make them have it that way.
(And, what of the people who would be paying for something they don’t have use for, when the costs inevitably do get forwarded to the users?)
2. How do you keep the proceeds from simply becoming more “blackbox” money for the Labels? (This question will apply, regardless of who’s actually signed to a Label or not.)
As long as the Labels exist, they will insist on being the primary collectors, and they will get their way. (How do you avoid any complications presented by the Labels, as long as they’re around?)
3. How much of the total take will be eaten up by the administrative costs of tracking, collecting and distributing it?
4. How do you keep other “IP-centered” industries out of the equation? (For those who haven’t been following, I call this one “Pandora’s Box”.)
The minute an “internet tax” gets approved, every other failing business model will demand their “cut” (Software, Publishing, Movies, ad infinitum) using the same logic as the music industry uses – “we’re losing revenue because the Internet has defeated our copyrights!”
Everyone who has a stake in “intellectual property”, from the distributors to the creators, will want a piece of that levy. It would be illogical to expect that “only music” (or more importantly, “only artists”) would get it.
5. Regardless of whether or not the ISP agrees to absorb the cost, how do you keep this levy from becoming another cash cow for someone else?
Everyone knows that once you install a tax or levy, it gets abused by the recipients. How long would the first levy be in place before “finding out” that it’s “not enough”, and needs to be raised??
6. How much would be “enough”?
In order for any of this to work, there would have to be sufficient funds collected to make everyone happy. Doesn’t this effectively make the whole idea dangerously close to being a “bailout”?
________________________________
To me, it is a bailout.
It’s a bailout because it is demanding revenue lost from a failed business model be recouped from a compulsory means, regardless of the consequences to those that foot the bill.
It’s a bailout that would be demanded by every failed business model. And, if we accept that, we need to consider other aspects to Pandora’s Box…
> Are we bailing out the whole music industry itself, or just the artists, or just the copyright holders, etc., etc.? Do we include things like the Karoake Industry (their tracks are also downloaded)?
> Are we attempting to bail out the entire Entertainment Sector (movies included)? What about publishers, or software designers, or font foundries, etc., etc.? Are we suggesting telling everyone else to take a hike, and only pay “music”??
> How do you sway those that depend on everything staying Status Quo to just “agree” to let it happen?
> If we don’t satisfy every part of the IP equation, it will not get filesharing “off the hook”.
The last one’s ironic, as filesharing is not, and was never, “illegal”.
Filesharing, even when sharing copyrighted (“illegal”) CONTENT, was not at fault. It was a twofold failure by industries to keep their business models alive. On the one hand, we have IP holders of all ilks stifling innovation with copyright abuses up the Yin-Yang. On the other hand, we have the failure a few industries to adapt to the times and its technological advancements, which the music industry itself was instrumental in developing and providing to the masses, thus leading to the defeat of its own copyrights.
You’ve said it yourself – nobody wants to waste another breathe on the filesharing issue. Filesharing is here to stay, no matter what happens. That horse has left the barn long ago. The trouble is, if you can’t let go of the idea that “Somehow, we need to make everyone pay for filesharing’s very existence”, you’re still wasting your thoughts, and accepting the propaganda that filesharing is hurting your bottom line.
The solution has to come from giving people a reason to buy from you, not from forcing revenue from an unwilling audience or market.
November 12th, 2009 at 6:31 pm
@DA
I am extremely grateful, and somewhat humbled, that SOMEONE here can put into coherent words what I can’t.
Thanks DA.
Now are we going to try to look forward as a team .. Artists AND Fans, or are we going to continue to simply be told basically ‘It’s going to be bad solution A or bad solution B, and there’s nothing you can do about it, so choose carefully ‘
November 12th, 2009 at 6:46 pm
@Devils advocate. I think I’ve addressed the black box issues.
but, yes, it should be a pandora’s box. It has to be. It would have to be for ALL media (even bloggers, etc.) it’s completely a traffic based/ consumption model. It’s not at all ‘demanding’ revenue. Imagine, however, even if some of the ISP levy were to spill over to the customer, you’d be talking like
1 euro/month per household and similarly with mobile phones, etc. In your argument, you are saying that you’d rather see the websites, the ISPs and the telecoms exploit creative people than create a checked and balanced system that helped to compensate the creative and media industries that you all love to ’share’ so much? You would never need to buy a download again and an open accounting system (as mentioned) would make certain that there wouldn’t be ‘black-box’ issues.
@Dresdnik: CDs? Are you serious? They are being phased out. The ‘new format’ is internet and mobile phones. The music has never changed. Let’s make this point clear. You were not buying plastic in the past, you were buying what as on the plastic. Music HAS NOT changed. The format has. They said all of this about radio, remember?
I’ll have to disagree with you about ‘broadcast’. The internet IS most certainly a broadcast situation. You ‘tune-in’, to a url in a not so unsimilar way than you used to tune into radio or dial in a channel on television. Only now, it’s on demand, it’s world-wide, you can search for it anytime and virtually anywhere. It’s impossible to argue this point.
No revenue would be ‘forced’ because no artist/ film/ or whatever would be paid unless their media was/is ‘used’.
File-sharing has never existed. Only file-copying has. ‘Sharing’ is when you give up a piece of something you have. This is a fundamental problem between the p2p industry and the music industry. The p2p industry say ‘we’re sharing’, the music & film industry say “you’re stealing”. The reality is, it’s simply search and copy. At the end of the day, you’re simply accessing media from the new format.
November 12th, 2009 at 6:51 pm
@Devils advocate the rubiks cube originally had 6 points in my argument and then I took songwriters/musicians/performers out of a ’single’ group because really, they are quite different (their income streams). So, that created an extra two categories, but, I forgot to change the rubiks cube line
November 12th, 2009 at 6:52 pm
Jon, can you make that an Octagon a la Rubiks? lol
November 12th, 2009 at 10:31 pm
@Indiana:
1. “I think I’ve addressed the black box issues.”
Sorry, but you simply haven’t even begun to.
I get the impression you don’t understand this one, so I’ll try to streamline the whole thing…
The Labels will get the money.
It will go in the black box, with the rest.
End of story.
Artists get virtually nothing more.
a2f2a Mission Statement #2 fails.
2. “…it’s completely a traffic based/ consumption model.”
Your originally proposal to tax the ISP didn’t mention anything about traffic. This makes it necessary for me to be more “educational”.
SCENARIO A: “FLAT” TAX
ISP pays a flat rate or percentage of its take.
No traffic figures necessary.
SCENARIO B: “TRAFFIC-BASED” TAX
ISP pays a percentage based on traffic of “downloaded music”.
ISP needs to track all users.
DPI will definitely be employed by the ISP.
User information gets stored by the ISP.
User information gets shared with 3rd parties.
The whole user community is already fighting all traffic monitoring, throttling and DPI proposals, as it completely violates the privacy laws of most democratic countries, and has the tremendous potential to give the big network players a tool to engage in all sorts of anti-competitive behaviour.
Such practices create a multitude of network problems across the globe and are the center of a number of deeper issues the users are having involving providers and all agencies that would snoop for profit or investigative purposes. And all this is said WITHOUT filesharing in mind!
Don’t even go there!
Nobody from the P2P community would accept this.
3. “It’s not at all ‘demanding’ revenue.”
That’s not even a sensible statement.
Definition of a levy: A compulsory revenue assignment, demanded by order of law, from another revenue stream.
4. “…even if some of the ISP levy were to spill over to the customer…”
No “even ifs” about it. The providers would never consent to any of it without the option of passing it down to the users.
But, let’s go along with you, for argument’s sake, and say it doesn’t ALL get absorbed by the ISP. Can you honestly say “one dollar” wouldn’t become fast become “twenty dollars”?
C’mon! We already trust the ISPs and the Labels to not exploit us, about as much as we trust Dick Cheney with a Doomsday Button!
5. “…you are saying that you’d rather see the websites, the ISPs and the telecoms exploit creative people than create a checked and balanced system that helped to compensate the creative and media industries that you all love to ’share’ so much?”
This one statement contains a number of classic illustrations of things I’ve been saying.
a) You’re completely implying that since I don’t approve of YOUR “solution”, I somehow automatically “approve” of a whole pile of injustices and perhaps don’t even want a solution. Please! Think in tangible terms! I wouldn’t be bothering to talk to you if I had it in for you and wanted you to starve.
b) HOW?, exactly, are ISPs and telecoms exploiting creative people? I’m not saying I believe they wouldn’t. I just need to understand where you’re getting this.
c) You keep using the word “compensate”. We’re not here to “compensate” artists in the same way we’re not here to “justify” ourselves, as I said before. We’re here to find a way for artists to develop a viable new business model – we’re not here to try forcing more life from the dying old one.
“Compensation” borders on the idea of “entitlement”. The creative industry is not built on entitlement. It’s art and culture whose rewards are reaped by building the consumers’ willingness to part with their cash. In other words, you give them incentive to purchase it, they will buy it, and they will feel free to possibly tip you.
6. “I’ll have to disagree with you about ‘broadcast’…. It’s impossible to argue this point.”
It’s not impossible to argue this point. It’s just impossible “win” the argument, if you don’t know what you’re arguing about.
Make no mistake, you’ve described an internet that doesn’t work quite the way the real one does. Either you’ve subscribed to the corporate drivel, or you just want it to be so. I can’t expect everyone to fully grasp this particular concept, as it really is a bit “elitist” for most common users. The best response I can give you about that at this point would be to sincerely encourage you to do the homework required to understand how.
7. “File-sharing has never existed. Only file-copying has.”
I don’t really know where you were going with this.
“Filesharing” is an actual term.
And “sharing” is simply the act of “making it possible for someone else to have what you have”.
“Copying” is the primary way for someone to share something you have.
We share ideas. We share “intelligence”. We share feelings. We share by copying. It’s only in the “physical” venue where sharing results in someone having less of anything.
In the digital world, a copy is most often a true duplicate of the original, and once it gets out in “The Wild”, it’s infinitely distributable. That is why many of us continue to impress upon the artists that the “market for copies” is pretty well a dead issue, and that newer forms of revenue streams need to evolve from other veiwpoints of innovation. When that happens, we won’t be having this kind of conversation… you’ll be doing it, and they’ll be buying it, and maybe we’ll even be sitting down with you somewhere, discussing more pleasant subjects, such as your “next project”. (!)
I sincerely sympathize with the many artists out there let down by the Industry, and left feeling as though even the fans have abandoned any concern for their well being. But, this is a difficult stage of development that’s upon both of us right now. Periodically, business models have to become obsolete, leaving various careers and consumers seemingly hopeless. There’s a lull, and then either a better alternative is developed, or innovation opens different avenues of opportunity.
As for the Music Industry, it keeps on reading out the Riot Act every time a new technology (often developed and released by the same Music Industry) emerges for public consumption. First, they feared the printing press would put artists out of work because of sheet music. Then it was the player piano, radio, television, recorded records (vinyl), the cassette, and the VCR – all of which were supposedly predicted to put all music (and other entertainment) out of business – only to later become embraced by and capitalized on by the same Industries.
I don’t think it’s unrealistic to think the same will happen with filesharing and the Internet. Once everyone figures out how to embrace them, the rest will come. And, I sincerely believe it won’t come at the cost of things like user privacy, technical restrictions, or forced taxes.
The only way it’s going to come, though, is for those needing to capitalize on them to better understand what they are, and how they really work.
November 13th, 2009 at 12:21 am
In this scenario, it would mean music would be basically ‘free’ for fans.
If by “music” you mean “infinitely copyable digital files,” then “music” already is free for fans – and non-fans, and everybody. Are you going to accept this and let us help you move on or are you going to continue trying to roll back time to a point where you could making money by selling the same thing over and over again?
If you’d start trying to sell music, the creation, performance, and connection, you wouldn’t even need to be on this site, instead spending your time connecting with fans and giving them reasons to buy.
Your alternative is three-strikes.
It’s that kind of attitude that will get us nowhere. You’ve acted like you have some kind of “trump card” ever since your first emails to The Pirate Bay, and it’s an idea shared by many others in the recording industry. There is no trump card. You will never stop filesharing, nor impact it in any significant way. Instead, you have a choice: you can start making money from your music, using sharable digital files to build your business, or you can continue trying to apply outdated suspensions of rights to a time when the people have taken them back. It’s all up to you, and you’re facing a community of people who would love to see you succeed. Stop trying to create your own world, and let us help you continue your art in this one.
November 13th, 2009 at 1:16 am
Two points:
There are a host of reasons why there are increasingly large amounts of bandwidth that are ‘made available’, which include (but are not limited to) the following:
- better modes of realizing data efficiency;
- massive overselling of capacity
- investment of capital infrastructure
- consumer and business demand (this latter category is particularly important)
- preparation for major shifts in how businesses operate (e.g. streaming video for conferences/phone calls is increasingly important, telemedicine, large file shares between business organizations, etc)
- competition amongst ISPs themselves
Now, as to the position that ISPs are marketing the amount of media that can be consumed by their various data packages, of course they do! What else are they going to do!? I write academic pieces on a regular basis, and cut between deeply theoretical work and technical work. If I wrote in incredibly technical ways, then my theory-driven academic audience would (largely) be clueless and if I wrote exclusively in Derrida/Kant/Habermas my technical audience would be just as clueless. In both cases, efforts need to be taken (by me) to express myself to both audiences simultaneously. If the position is that ISPs are using the following as conditions for marketing:
Hours spent browsing (per day) – 24 hours
Emails sent & received (per day) – 1500
Music downloads (per month) – 340 tracks
Video downloads (per month) – 9 hours
Software updates / downloads (per month) – 24 hours
…then what happens when/if they instead turn to massively technical explanations of what they provide? Does it get them off the hook for content providers, only to land them in the hot seat with consumer advocates who insist that the ‘technical’ explanations are anti-consumer because they presume a degree of technical expertise that cannot be reasonably assumed (which, I will point out, has happened in North America…)? I would argue that (at least in the Canadian experience), while there might be an implicit push to get people to download media, there ISN’T a push for people to adopt P2P protocols to get that media. Bell Canada (DSL) and Rogers (Cable) are well known for their efforts to limit P2P on the basis that much of it generates congestion on their networks – they would be MUCH happier if their subscribers went to YouTube, iTunes, or any other server-based (as opposed to peer based) delivery environment. Even if a ‘legitimate’ source (e.g. Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, CNN) distribute their programs using P2P, the ISPs delay THAT content on the basis of it generating congestion. The notion that very many of the dominant carriers (as opposed to smaller, reseller, ISPs) are actively hoping that their consumers will be enticed to use P2P as a result of stated large broadband caps is (as I read the literature) inaccurate (at least in the North America situation). Moreover, if we are to believe the figures that are provided by ISPs in their regulatory filings, then we are led to believe that only a VERY SMALL portion of users are actually consuming more than 2-4GB of data/month. We’re not seeing every subscriber suck down 40GB – 500GB/month – a relatively tiny minority is responsible for this. Tossing a levy on ISPs suggests that all or even the majority of ISPs’ users are somehow involved in the ‘illicit’ engagement with media, and this simply doesn’t appear to work out in the regulatory and third-party statistics that I’m looking at.
“File-sharing has never existed. Only file-copying has. ‘Sharing’ is when you give up a piece of something you have. This is a fundamental problem between the p2p industry and the music industry. The p2p industry say ‘we’re sharing’, the music & film industry say “you’re stealing”. The reality is, it’s simply search and copy. At the end of the day, you’re simply accessing media from the new format.”
I would note that this is very strange as I read it. File-sharing has existed for a long time, just in a less evident (and similarly non-commercial) sense. Folk culture is based on the notion that we can share common cultural elements, either (relatively) verbatim or through transformation over repetitions by different parties. What is occurring (as I see the landscape) is a significant shift in the ability for the consumer to participate with their media, to a less known audience (i.e. rather than copying CDs for 30 people, you share it out to the globe). I also feel that I should note that, depending on the media format that individuals store media on (e.g. in Canada, CDs or a few other types of media), then they HAVE paid for the download, on the basis that what they’re saving the data to already has a levy put on it.
As for the ‘its the same media in a new format’, I’d deeply, deeply oppose this very notion along the lines of Marshall McLuhan. While there is often an attempt to divide the medium and the message (i.e. new medium, same message/music), this cannot be asserted on the basis of how technology reshapes ontological and epistemological conditions of extension in the world and, as such, the conditions under which ‘content’ is perceived and experienced. This isn’t to say that ‘the world is brand new, let’s scrap everything and start over’, but just that it is important to consider the differences between the TV, radio, CD, and various media formats online. They aren’t the same, and should have their differences respected to avoid hyperbole (IMHO
).
November 13th, 2009 at 1:22 am
Oh – and one other thing: text exclusively isn’t a stellar way of conveying oneself (as we know). I’ve quite glad that you’re here having this conversation Indiana; I’m learning a great deal reading your posts, and appreciate your willingness to engage in this space. I’ve been told that my writing is sometimes intense – I can assure you (and Jon can presumably back this up!) that I’m very much interested in what is being said by all parties, and see what happens here as a serious, but friendly, discussion amongst people who are mutually trying to think through ways of engaging with the new media landscape.
November 13th, 2009 at 9:23 pm
@everybody. Christopher, I’d love to have a conversation with you. @robert, @dreddsnik (hope I spelled it right) I’d also like to speak with you. DA, you too. @crosbie @jon Barron. Why don’t we all just have a chat and do the old-fashioned telephone or over skype. My email is indianagregg AT the google form of mail with the dot come behind it. All of you. Doing this way over a2f2a is cool and good, but, somehow, I get a feeling that personal contact might really set things up. We’ve now been spending some time together which has already helped us all. We’re not maybe going to see eye-to-eye (and artists are, believe it or not, although we’re emotional, we’re some of the first to concede at times and maybe more willing to understand. We do artsy things. We percieve life differently and fundamentally, we only reflect what YOU, the people we observe, think and it’s ultimately on a more emotional level… not to say that we don’t create and impact out of our incompetence, but, artistic people generally don’t care if we piss you off as long as we can help make you think and by doing so, most artistic people hope to have an impact on the society. Somehow, I believe that it’s worth while speaking in a more face-to-face manner.. if you’re up for it. Typing at a keyboard is not the same as human contact. I think we’d all agree to that. I’ve fallen in love with all of you and all of your points of view make sense with that other side of me that relates to the value of every man, women and child’s opinion. This may sound severely idealistic, but, I’m an idealist and at the same time a realist dealing with the same things every person has to deal with. It’s all about life and how we can really work together. We’re nothing unless we can work together. this has been a really cultivating past few days for me and I’m really happy to have spent this time with you.
xx indy
November 13th, 2009 at 9:38 pm
“old-fashioned telephone or over skype”
Great idea.
Cheers!
November 17th, 2009 at 3:33 pm
Sure, the telephone might give you some comfort in the fact that you have a real voice, and don’t have to interpret the “emotion” behind someone’s typing. But, what of ALL the participants??
This isn’t ig2f2ig.
(Any more than we wanted it to be bb2f2bb!)
We now have a few artists participating, and a whole P2P community out there wanting to hear what they say, and possibly give them some feedback to some possibly superior ideas they may bring in.
Are we to just start “Skyping” amongst a limited number of us, and then have to re-interpolate everything discussed back to a2f2a, in order for EVERYBODY to keep abreast of what could have been continued right “here” in the first place??
And, what about all the “white noise” that telephone conferencing is always plagued with? Instead of having your say, and someone having a chance to read it through, you now have the nuisance of everybody trying to “talk over” every one else.
At this stage of the game, I don’t think the idea’s as constructive as it might first seem.
November 17th, 2009 at 5:07 pm
@DA
Agreed. Even with Skype conference calls… it is still too impulsive in response. People need time to read and digest.
Perhaps trying to write WITHOUT any tone, attitude, or emotion is best. Or at least try to minimize it.
It will reduce the chance of misinterpretation.
November 17th, 2009 at 7:47 pm
I think that we could probably set up some kind of conference. I don’t know how many people would be reading or not as this forum is relatively new. But, sometimes it’s easier to listen to people when they present their points by speaking rather than piecing together what they mean through various comments. For myself, it’s sometimes easier to listen to people. We could perhaps record the conversations or something and Jon could put them online here.
November 17th, 2009 at 9:49 pm
Sorry, Indy: A live video thing, yes, but not telephone. Not for me, anyhow.
Cheers!
November 17th, 2009 at 10:39 pm
We intended EVERYBODY to be able to participate, and want to maintain the continuity and the integrity of it all for the benefit of those artists who are watching, but not jumping in just yet.
It would be counter-productive at this stage to start taking a2f2a discussions OFFLINE, period!
November 18th, 2009 at 4:25 am
There’s nothing stopping people producing podcasts or videos of themselves. They can then upload or even share them via BitTorrent – with a copyleft license.
November 18th, 2009 at 6:24 am
@ Crosbie.
Individual messags wouldn’t achieve much. We need interactive discussion. IMO, phone calls would get out of hand but as I said somewhere else, Indy’s idea of face-to-face discussions is good. With live video streaming, thoughts could be clearly expressed and moderating becomes possible. I’ve been working on it (two possibiities haven’t panned out) and if anyone has any ideas about an application which might enable this … p2p @ shaw dot ca.
Maybe Skype can handle simultaneous videos? I haven’t looked at that.
Cheers!
November 18th, 2009 at 12:30 pm
@Jon,
I’ve tried conference with Skype but it was only audio. I don’t think it can support multiple videos, though that would be cool, in a Brady Bunch kind of way.
November 20th, 2009 at 12:23 pm
I thought the idea would be to do it live streaming either video or audio.