UK-based artist Indiana Gregg is rapidly becoming a fixture on a2f2a and in Woman at work: Part II, she explains in depth and in detail how she sees the music industry in the digital 21st century, saying in her intro:
“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.”
a2f2a digest editor Devil’s Advocate takes her on in a comment post which kicks off with, “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), and goes on >>>
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,” DA says, adding, “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 8:07 pm
1. How do you keep the cost from being passed on to the internet subscribers?
You already pay for it every month. There would have to be transparency. The people who don’t use their internet will simply not subscribe to an ISP anyway. (I’m not talking about just music, It’s all media- virtual everything- based upon a traffic-consumption model).
2. How do you keep the proceeds from simply becoming more “blackbox” money for the Labels?
The “Labels” would not be allowed to go near it. That’s the whole point of a checks and balance system. Again, no black box scenario due to ‘transparency’.
3. How much of the total take will be eaten up by the administrative costs of tracking, collecting and distributing it?
This is why every website in the license would account (and be held accountable). The creators would cross-check it. But, as I said, the collection societies already exist and they are not affiliated with the labels. They collect on behalf of the artists. This would simply need to be extended to bloggers, trackers, etc. The government can help subsidize the accounting system with the budgets they’ve set aside for ‘3-strikes’.
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”.)
It has to be “Everyone”. It has to be “pandora’s box”. It’s all or nothing. But, we’re looking at a ‘collective’ of all websites who use other people’s work. If you are a blogger and you don’t use someone elses media, you wouldn’t need to participate in the public license; however, you would benefit from the ISP levy based upon traffic and consumption.
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?
Transparency. Open and public accounting. A system that (in the digital age) is feasible.
6. How much would be “enough”?
It’s not meant to ‘make everyone happy’. It’s simply a ‘compensation’ for use. For example, radio royalties were never meant to be a ‘bail-out’. Your looking at something like 1-2 euro/household or mobile phone subscriber per month split between the two prongs. So, 50cents from the ISPs and the other half to be generated through the public license scenario.
November 12th, 2009 at 8:08 pm
” “The solution has to come from giving people a reason to buy from you, not from forcing revenue from an unwilling audience or market.” ”
Seems like that’s the only way they want it, no matter what anybody else wants. Welcome to the age of the darknet.
November 12th, 2009 at 9:53 pm
I gotta admit, it’s a fantastic way to make certain that a global boycott is totally ineffective. Even if the fans ARE pushed to the point where they refuse to buy from any label or artist that supports stuff like this, The major players are still guaranteed a paycheck. Why not ?
November 12th, 2009 at 10:24 pm
I’ve been asked why I seem so ‘hostile’ towards ideas like this and those that support it. I’ll answer that as simply and completely as possible. Actually it’s not too difficult a concept to grasp. It’s the removal of choice. Isp tax, levy, global licensing, whatever you want to call it today, or 10 days from now it boils down to the same thing. Some artists music I don’t care for. I don’t own any of it and I don’t download it. Some artists hold positions that I find so ridiculous or offensive that I won’t poison my collection with anything from them, or anything that they have even performed on. I get to choose the works that I wish to support, and not give a damn dime to the ones I don’t care for.Label execs have realized that there is a certain lack of ‘flavor’ in current offerings, and see their business model failing.Fewer and fewer people want what they are pushing on us, but so far they can’t FORCE us to pay for what we don’t like or want. At least not yet.These ‘licenses’, Levies, or whatever else you want to call them change all of that.Whether I like it or not, I have to pay money to artists I don’t like and don’t want to support. I don’t WANT Indiana Gregg or any other artist whose offerings aren’t to my liking to have ANY OF MY MONEY. These tactics FORCE me and others to potentially pay for and support those artists or performers we don’t want to support.I really hope that I’m not the only one that has a problem with this.Whatever wonderful rhetoric you choose to use, calling the internet a ‘broadcasting’ media, etc .. it still boils down to enforced payment, without choice or representation.Personally, i’d like to be able to choose who to support and who to ignore when it comes to ‘artists’ of ANY media.The CHOICE to pay by the FAN should be the only model, But I can see why some would prefer payment enforcement.
November 13th, 2009 at 12:31 am
Welcome to the digital age. My hope is that the people who can’t wrap their heads around new business models will simply quit, making more room for today’s artists who eagerly embrace a global network of fans.
November 13th, 2009 at 12:55 am
@Indiana:
You’re not really “answering” the questions. You’re basically just rephrasing your original statements that generated the questions.
Sorry to continue with “numerical itemization”, but it seems necessary…
1. I asked how you intend to prevent the ISP levy costs from getting passed to the consumer.
I won’t comment on what you have put there.
It’s totally “sleep-deprived”.
(Refer to the actual post for my peripherals to that question.)
2. I asked how you keep the proceeds from simply becoming more “blackbox” money for the Labels?
Your answer was “The Labels would not be allowed to go near it.”
How on earth would they be “prevented” from not only going near it, but from becoming the central control center for this process?? Do you actually think the Labels are going to stand aside and let someone else direct these funds??
3. Now you’ve got WEBSITES tracking things?! And, you’ve got every form of “exchange media” having to be “cross-checked” with “creator data bases”?! And, you’ve got the various governments supposedly holding cash “designated for 3 Strikes” that would pay for all this?!
First, only 2 governments on this planet are trying to push the 3 Strikes thing. Everybody else is saying “No!”.
Second, do you even know what you’re suggesting??
Do you have any idea how complicated and expensive it could prove to be, even if it was acceptable to the general user population to be tracked every single step of the way (it’s not)?
Third, we’ve pretty well already established a consensus about the existing “collection societies”. They’ve already failed miserably to deliver on their existing mandates. We simply have no faith in them handling additional ones. They’re just additional blackbox holders.
4. “It has to be “pandora’s box”
So, if we’re to see EVERYONE paid by this, how much will be considered “enough” to charge the ISPs?? (Remember, the higher this amount goes, the more ridiculous it becomes to expect providers to “absorb” it.)
And, Pandora’s Box is what you’re deliberately trying to promote.
Everything about your “2-pronged solution” is starting to appear to actually demand far too much coordination, cooperation, and tracking of virtually every component of the Internet, in order to work, all in the name of “music”.
We are all for an end to the insanity – not the creation of even more ways to hang ourselves.
5. “Transparency. Open and public accounting.”
You don’t even explain how any of this constitutes “open” accounting.
How you would propose to keep the books in sight? After all, you can’t exactly have “everyone” doing this kind of accounting “in the cloud”. Someone has to control how it all adds up and how it all gets meted out. And someone has to protect the integrity of the process, which leads to the need for “controlled dissemination” of the data.
6. “It’s not meant to ‘make everyone happy’ ”
Well, it has to make everyone happy with the “compensation figure”, in order to “make filesharing legal”. There MUST be a “minimum” that will be deemed necessary to cover each and every intellectual property interest, before all affected parties agree not to worry about filesharing, and strike it from all copyright law. (You DO understand that it would be absolutely necessary to have that done, in order for your plan to make any sense in the end, don’tcha?!)
I don’t think 10 Euros per household would even begin to encourage the entire IP world to forfeit their “right to chase filesharers”.
_____________________________
None of this proposal contains any congruency when you apply it to all the factors involved.
And, your answers are inconsistent with your previous answers and with your original outline…
A) You talk about “making filesharing legal”, and then talk about “download sites” that would need to collaborate with a “global system”?! And, the majority of filesharing is done through torrenting, which splits the shares into small file sectors, and mostly using decentralized tracking.
B) You say it’s a simple plan, yet it needs the whole world to account for every use of every creator’s media, in every possible online venue, cross-checking against creator databases, and extracting “traffic and consumption data”, in order to also determine amounts for a global population of public licenses, and amounts for a global population of ISP levy fees as well. Notwithstanding, there is the collection and distibution of the funds themselves.
C) You talk about “traffic figures” and “tracking”, but have no idea about what information will need to be collected and stored, by whom, for what purposes, for how long, and shared with whomeverelse, or what the implications of any of this are.
D) You started out with the idea of taxing ISPs, and when asked about some aspects of that, threw in the “traffic-based” quality afterward. This gives me the impression you were “feeling your way” around for how the raw idea could be made a real one, as you demonstrated to me that you have no knowledge of why traffic-monitoring and tracking are a really big deal.
E) You say the ISP levy shouldn’t end up being passed directly to the users, yet you can’t even begin to explain how that would be prevented.
I’m sorry if you think I’m trying to strike you down at every turn. This was not my intention, but so many parts of this scheme have “holes” in them that are very obvious to anyone of experience, and you need to hear that.
November 13th, 2009 at 9:28 am
First off, apologies to the mods for my previous long post. I used the p formatting code instead of carriage returns for the whole thing, and even though it look fine in the preview window, the actual post came out as a large lump. I’m guessing I missed a slashie somewhere but don’t understand why it looked fine in the preview window.
DA, that’s all she has been doing for ANY question posed to her. Sophistry. Those who question her she either doesn’t ‘understand’ or she thinks are ‘aggressive’.
NO ONE has been able to force the labels to be ‘transparent’ with their practices as thing are NOW, let alone after they start getting a big fat stream of money for nothing other than existing. You think the have trouble ‘finding’ the artists they are supposed to pay now just wait until they are even more flush and can afford even sneakier accountants and lawyers.Any one who insists on wanting to have a ‘peek’ at their books will be lucky to just get laughed out of the room. Believing that transparency can be magically made to happen after the net tax money rolls in when it can’t be done effectively now is simply ludicrous.
November 13th, 2009 at 10:04 am
your points all make sense. But, there are ways around this. The labels are only one piece of the equation (and don’t forget, they’re struggling a bit. You’ve done your job boycotting the RIAA fairly well.
below is my answer to @robert from another thread on p2p.net and maybe helps you understand where I’m coming from and why. I don’t have all the answers, but, I’m sure we could formulate something as a group.
It would require a flow chart, spreadsheets, data, etc. I think it’s entirely possible to force transparency upon them in a digital environment ESPECIALLY when it comes to license fees and levies in the digital age. Why shouldn’t it?
November 13th, 2009 at 10:54 am
@Dresdnik In my theory (and I didn’t iterate it very well because my post was already very long), I don’t see this as any type of removal of choice. Basically, the music that you don’t like or don’t use wouldn’t receive your play or download count and therefore wouldn’t be compensated because no exchange would have taken place. It’s very idealistic of me, I realise, but, I believe that in a digital age, it’s possible. And for the reasons explained above, necessary. I realise that there is complete opposition between the RIAA and your point of view. But, the middle ground needs to be found somehow. I don’t think you are being ‘hostile’, just sometimes a wee bit agressive and since
but, now you’ve explained it so that’s cool 
November 13th, 2009 at 12:29 pm
“I don’t see this as any type of removal of choice. Basically, the music that you don’t like or don’t use wouldn’t receive your play or download count and therefore wouldn’t be compensated because no exchange would have taken place. ”
I still do. If I am forced to pay any levy or isp ‘tax’, even if I download or view NO label media, that money goes into a pool from which someone who is not me decides who gets it. There isn’t any way around it. I have no choice or say in who gets a portion of the money I am forced to contribute. It is a removal of choice regardless of what pretty verbal wrapping is placed on it. This option removes any chance that boycotting will put any pressure on media companies to change. That’s why they push it. This also ensures that mediocre label offerings, all looks and no substance, get payment whether or not anyone actually wants to hear them. There is no other way to look at it. There is no other way it will work. No one but the labels and certain artists want it. But It’t that or else, isn’t it ?
November 13th, 2009 at 12:32 pm
” It would require a flow chart, spreadsheets, data, etc. I think it’s entirely possible to force transparency upon them in a digital environment ESPECIALLY when it comes to license fees and levies in the digital age. Why shouldn’t it? ”
You’ve got to be kidding me ?
The US courts couldn’t even force transparency out of them. If it even looks like they may be forced to comply, they simply buy a law to prevent it. Forcing transparency on any system THEY ARE IN CHARGE OF is a pipe dream.
November 13th, 2009 at 1:38 pm
Two thoughts:
(1)
In a world in which legislators cannot globally agree upon measures and actions about how to handle the financial system that has just caused the worlds greates economically crisis, how to keep it transparent and controlable, you really think those legislators will agree on a levy and blanked license system? Or do you just want to introduce it in the UK? If so – alright go ahead!
(2)
numbers I found without digging too deep:
2006: 250 Millon households with broadband access (let’s say today that’s 300 Million – probably largely overestimated)
http://www.emarketer.com/Report.aspx?code=bband_world_jun06
2007: 3.3 billion mobile phone subscriptions (that are all subscriptions in the world – even those that allow just text and call)
http://www.geek.com/articles/mobile/33-billion-mobile-phone-subscriptions-worldwide-2007123/
Todays DIGITAL media and entertainment industry is a 58 Billion market. (PWC Global Media Outlook)
Those are very rough figures but enough to see that a levy system won’t be possible at 1-2€ per housholde/mobile subscriber.
November 13th, 2009 at 5:11 pm
Bjoern, in UK law the service the ISP’s provide is a free conduit, which means that they cannot be held responsible for the stuff that people download. The creative industries are lobbying hard to get this changed. An incoming Conservative government – which is very likely – would probably support such a change. Once they can be held responsible, the ISP’s would face the prospect of being sued for copyright infringement on a massive scale. The compromise is likely to be a blanket ISP levy which will save the media industries from ruin. Needless to say, very few artists will see any money from such a scheme.
I am not saying that this is desirable, I am just pointing out that it is the free-market solution to the file-sharing problem and therefore the most likely.
Dredd, don’t think of the levy as forcing you to pay for music you don’t like – which is blatantly unfair. Instead, think of it as a way of charging you retrospectively for all the music you’ve downloaded for free.
November 13th, 2009 at 5:24 pm
Government forcing a tax on everyone whether they download music or not is the antithesis of the free market. This is a horrible idea, for MANY reasons already posted here
November 13th, 2009 at 5:40 pm
” Dredd, don’t think of the levy as forcing you to pay for music you don’t like – which is blatantly unfair. Instead, think of it as a way of charging you retrospectively for all the music you’ve downloaded for free. ”
You’re right, it’s blatantly unfair, and that is what it’s doing, no fancy language gets around that fact. Levy money forced from my pocket potentially goes to those that I did not choose to have it.’Yellow snow’ is a nice euphemism for something we are all familiar with, but doesn’t change what it is.
This also makes the assumption that I ‘download for free’ any music at all. Believe or not, there are many that don’t.Those that don’t will be charged as well as those that do. Let’s not forget about those that already use pay services like Itunes . Are they going to be exempt ? How’s THAT going to work.
Changing the way I ‘think’ of it doesn’t make it anything other than what it is. Forced payment for goods that I may not want or have, enforced financial support for those I might never buy voluntarily.
Why don’t YOU change the way you think about successful models that already work, and stop trying to shore up a model that is failing.
November 13th, 2009 at 5:45 pm
Heh, sorry, but this just entered my head.
How do you think Apple would react if a levy is put in place and everyone can download without have to ever pay Itunes again ?
Won’t that ‘ruin’ Apples business model ? We can’t have a large corporate entity like Apple going out of business can we ? We need to SAVE them from RUIN don’t we ?
Hmmmm, levy away .. I can’t wait to watch the look on Steve Jobs face when he realizes what hit him.
November 13th, 2009 at 5:56 pm
Really Really sorry, I KNOW how the mods hate this but ..
Let’s take it a little further shall we …
Levy goes in place and eventually covers print, and photos etc ..
No need to ever set foot in ( or buy from ) Barnes and Noble et.al for a book, no need to pay anyone ever for a movie etc..
Now think of all of those nice stores that will have to close their doors because, after all, this nice levy that covers all media has made any brick and mortar store obsolete. Sounds absurd doesn’t it ? It’s not .. it’s the eventual logical conclusion of what you are proposing. All of that money no longer needs to go to any vendor of choice, it ALL goes into a great big black box where people who decide for us who gets what, with no accountability, transparency, or oversight. Doesn’t the economy depend on those ‘other’ places too ? Maybe not, some are more equal than others after all
November 13th, 2009 at 5:59 pm
@Billy
).
sorry I was just being sarcastic (difficult to transport that in written
Just to get my position straight:
I am totally against any legislative “solution” to today’s probelms.
I am totally against a levy/tax-system.
November 13th, 2009 at 6:28 pm
@dredd
at least you are bringing your sarcasm accross
like your stand-point
November 13th, 2009 at 8:56 pm
Dredd,
There is an unfortunate tendency among some here to take a simple fact and extrapolate a utopian outcome – eg the idea that, just because people can download stuff for free, this means that you can no longer sell copies. The evidence suggests otherwise.
Same with the idea of a levy. Such a thing already operates here in Canada. Have people stopped buying music?
The levy will be introduced and i-tunes will still be able to sell records – more than ever before – because of the promotional nature of file-sharing. They will simply supply add-ons that can’t be downloaded – tickets to gigs, access to other media.
And accusing me of trying to ’shore up a model that is already failing’ is like blaming the Greens for climate change. I don’t like it any more than you. I’m just outlining the most likely future scenario. This is a warning, not an endorsement.
November 13th, 2009 at 9:33 pm
” here is an unfortunate tendency among some here to take a simple fact and extrapolate a utopian outcome – eg the idea that, just because people can download stuff for free, this means that you can no longer sell copies. The evidence suggests otherwise. ”
Correct. This being true, why then is there a need for an isp levy ?
” Same with the idea of a levy. Such a thing already operates here in Canada. Have people stopped buying music? ”
Yes, you have a blank media levy. How much money do you get from that ? We have a blank media levy in the US. Some blank cd’s are labeled ‘Music CD’s’ These are a little more expensive supposedly to compensate the ‘artists’. Since I would think that some of your stuff is popular here too, how much do you get from that ? My point is, just because there is already one example of a levy that doesn’t work doesn’t mean creating another one that doesn’t work is a good idea.
” The levy will be introduced and i-tunes will still be able to sell records – more than ever before – because of the promotional nature of file-sharing. ”
Yes, I know. You grokked it. So why is a levy needed then ?
” And accusing me of trying to ’shore up a model that is already failing’ is like blaming the Greens for climate change. ”
It’s kind of like accusing me of ‘just wanting stuff for free ‘ isn’t it. It’s confrontational and does nothing to further the discussion, My apologies to you.
” This is a warning, not an endorsement. ”
Yes, you and Indiana have both been doing a lot of ‘warning us’. Are we actually trying to work together, or are we just going to repeatedly ‘warned’ about our behavior and what’s going to be done to us, whether we like it or not.
Now as to the actual topic, do you see why I feel regardless of how you dress it up, it’s still the same thing ? It’s still taking MY money ( the artists worry a lot about their money, worrying about my money seems fair ) giving it to some one else to give to who THEY choose, and not to whom I choose.
I don’t think any of us can accept that, and it will result in a backlash.
November 13th, 2009 at 9:55 pm
@Dreddsnik. It’s time to talk in the ancient way. You are right, we are being very ‘utopic’, (those of us who are in that camp.) I now know a little more about you, thanks to Jon, and see how loyal and passionate you have been for a very long while. (actually, I didn’t need Jon to confirm that for you. You’ve proven it yourself.)
xx
In my opinion, it takes a form of cooperation and some of it needs to be face-to-face and it would be really great if you would accept an invitation to simply speak together via skype or telephone. I’d really appreciate that if you’d be ok to spend a little bit of your time. This is what I’d like to see between us all because in my opinion, the people who are willing to comment here are all very passionate ( a quality that’s rare and important these days.) It would be kinda cool for us all to speak together. http://a2f2a.com/2009/11/12/woman-at-work-part-ii/comment-page-1/#comment-787 It would be fairly cool if we ended up writing a tune about too perhaps, if we can… like, even if we wouldn’t see eye-to-eye finally on this debate, the one thing we all have in common is (in the cold light of morning at 2:54 right now).. is… (you guessed it) MUSIC
why not. it’ll be fun:)
November 13th, 2009 at 10:07 pm
@Dreddsnik as ridicuolous and uneducated as this may sound… why don’t we go for the pipe dream? The way I see it is 100% or nothing. Billy’s right, that’s the stuff we are made of in a way. We should really fight tooth and nails all the way rather than let any type of negativity play into it. That’s why Billy is “Billy”. You either really make the claim or you don’t. You, for one, are extremely opinionative. In my opinion, you might be the David against the Goliath. god knows that you and Jon and a load of very passionate people are speaking their minds. As usual, I’ll ask you “Why not” .. so, tell me “why not.” We’re only asking of YOU. It’s a plate, and a big one, but, we’re all here and we’d all like to see something work. (I suck, I’m a utopian, I’m an idealist, but, you know what, who f***ing cares!) I think we’d all be good to speak together and meet up somehow and really go for that utopian ideal. We’re in a better place than ever to fight for it. Look, I can present my ideas, but, they are ‘ideas’, doesn’t mean we can’t work together and create something a billion times bettter, does it?
November 13th, 2009 at 10:09 pm
Expecting the p2p community to roll over, wave it’s paws in the air and piss all over itself in submission because “the levy is coming whether you like it or not” isn’t going to happen. That’s what a puppy does when a big dog knocks it over. We’re not puppies. We can argue back and forth about copyright, it’s duration, and who should hold it(third party rightsholders or the artists) but as Billy and many musicians aren’t willing to accept the abolition of copyright the p2p community is not going to accept an isp tax/levy.
November 13th, 2009 at 10:16 pm
Hi all:
I have an idea how we might be able to put Indy’s idea into practice here on a2f2a – talking together face-to-face, so to speak. It’s something I was thinking of for when we were a bit further down the road, but now might be a good time.
I have a couple of calls to make tomorrow and then I’ll fill you in, even if it doesn’t look as thought it’ll pan out.
Cheers!
November 13th, 2009 at 10:29 pm
” In my opinion, it takes a form of cooperation and some of it needs to be face-to-face and it would be really great if you would accept an invitation to simply speak together via skype or telephone. ”
I don’t have a problem with that. I’m not the only one that understands that cold text, no matter how clear, doesn’t always carry the proper intent.
” In my opinion, you might be the David against the Goliath.”
There’s no ‘might be’ about it. Why else would it be so frustrating have it hinted that a really bad idea ( a levy ) is going to happen no matter what and it would be better to smile and think nice thoughts about it with milk and cookies ? the suggestion to ‘change how I think about it ‘ sounds to me like..
‘ don’t think about it as a kick in the pants, try to think of it more like redecorating your breeches with a nice imprint of a shoe’. That hopefully illustrates why billy’s suggestion was was a bit .. irritating, maybe not just to me but to others that don’t post but are reading along. It sounds pretty condescending. Collectively we ARE David, and right now you APPEAR to be sitting in Goliaths lap instead of where you should be, standing with the rest of us ‘Davids’. If that actually happens, and we actually do stand together like we SHOULD be , Goliath’ will be as powerless as a worm in a hurricane.
I’d like to see womething work too, and there are already a lot of somethings out there already working.Any levy, regardless of how pretty the bow is comes in a very large black box and that will never be acceptable.
November 13th, 2009 at 10:33 pm
” I have a couple of calls to make tomorrow and then I’ll fill you in, even if it doesn’t look as thought it’ll pan out. ”
I don’t have Skype, but it’s not like I can’t figure it out
November 14th, 2009 at 8:12 am
Monkey, I am not expecting you to wave your paws in the air at the prospect of a levy. Just because I’m telling you about it, doesn’t mean I’m in favour of such a thing. Do environmentalists want the ice caps to melt? “Well, they keep making movies about it…..”
I am not in favour of a levy, but I hear it discussed by the big players in every meeting I attend. And I know that people like you and Dredd don’t want to hear that your behaviour might have negative consequences, but to imagine that Goliath is going to roll over just because you can download stuff for free is nuts.
It’s not like you don’t understand the power that the RIAA have. You’re always going on about it. And you recognise that artists like me and Indy and consumers like you and Dredd will be the victims of an unholy alliance of the creative corporations and the ISPs.
Our best chance of fighting the levy is for us to form a coalition of artists and consumers and we won’t be able to do that, Monkey, if you are demanding the abolition of copyright as the price we have to pay.
November 14th, 2009 at 9:12 am
@ Dredd, re Skype.
If I can do it, you can do it. heh. It handles conference calls, but I don’t know how many at a time. Yeh. I know. Look it up. But right now I’m swamped with posts and emails I have to deal with.
But my idea is a bit more interesting than Skype, if it comes together. Stay tuned.
Cheers!
November 14th, 2009 at 9:36 am
@Billy
“And I know that people like you and Dredd don’t want to hear that your behaviour might have negative consequences” — Billy that’s a provocation, please try to avoid it. I realize it is frustrating at times, but try to chill.
“… but to imagine that Goliath is going to roll over just because you can download stuff for free is nuts” and is also not what we said, ever. We know they won’t roll over and have said so. We know they won’t take what little pittance the levy will give them lying down either, but Indianna seems to think that somehow it will be possible to force that.
“Our best chance of fighting the levy is for us to form a coalition of artists and consumers and we won’t be able to do that, Monkey, if you are demanding the abolition of copyright as the price we have to pay.” I think our arguments for copyright being used and abused support that a gentle copyright is not possible. I know you believe in it, that personal use should be exempt, but it won’t happen!
Try to explain, from what you’ve seen and read, how personal exemption will actually work? Be sure to include the sudden change to “not-for-profit” status of radio stations, movie productions, websites that link to torrents but use advertising to pay for bandwidth, youtube, etc… will somehow not happen. Be sure to include how the law will not be manipulated and how somehow, the DMCA will be reverted because artists and fans want it that way.
You won’t get any changes in copyright law, you won’t because those that benefit from IP-based control, patents and copyrights and registered trademarks, will not let you and have the funds to bury you ten times over.
So how do we proceed? By not using any laws as a basis! We’ve been saying that and you don’t agree and that’s OK but you don’t seem to answer how, with strong facts other than good faith, the system won’t simply revert back to the way it is now, assuming you get your exemptions for personal use approved.
You and Indianna have good faith in the ’system’ of levies or copyrights and licensing. We do not.
We have faith that the fans WILL pay the artists when given a fair opportunity to, such as donate towards releases and a donate button and using the Reason To Buy model. You do not.
This is the fundamental difference. You guys seem to trust the law and governments and corporations more than you trust the fans and consumers (I suppose because we could get it for free it means we all do? We’ve already covered how that is false). We know that and well… it’s par for the course, so we are here trying to show you that “take the license or face the wrath of 3 strikes” is not only trying to choose the lesser of two evils when we know there are other options, it’s also like choosing AIDS or Cancer instead of exercise and healthy eating as a way of life, considering you’re going to die someday anyhow. Maybe that analogy doesn’t quite work, but you’re not thinking out side the box man.
We’re trying to get you and Indianna to think beyond levy/tax/license/copyright. We’re trying to show you that people will pay! By the way, those that take for free are not and would not support the artist. Fans, while they take for free copies, will support the artist with signed CD’s at concerts, going to concerts, donations, investing in the next recording by donating to it (we pay, you record and release), and the reason to buy! Don’t forget, we have to have a reason, just because you recorded it doesn’t mean I have a reason to buy it.
I explained that in a very long comment Thursday night on p2pnet.net where I described how Matthew Good connects with his fans and how they would roll over backwards for him. He knows his demos posted on the site will be copied for free by some people, but he also knows that his real fans would not do that and we are the ones giving him the funds to keep going. More than that, we give him gratification, a thousand thank-you’s for his work, endless comments in support of him and defending him, etc…
That’s because he connected with us! That’s our reason to buy, not because he recorded something and released it or made t-shirts. You guys always go that route, “maybe we should just open a t-shirt factory” which is really a ridiculous comment to make. It shows you’re stuck on tangible items.
Re-read that long post, understand the connection we have with our favoured artists and how I’ve never purchased or borrowed or worn a Matthew Good t-shirt. I’ve only purchased his CD’s after listening to them from downloads. I’ve only gone to his concerts after seeing the clips on youtube. According to Indianna, I’ve paid for my broadband access so I’ve paid for that stuff already. Wrong. I’ve paid for broadband access to anything I bloody well want!
I chose and searched for what I found, no one directed me and above all, no one channeled my preferences to what they wanted me to see or read or hear. Three strikes, levies, licensing will do those things! I don’t care if the US Navy and Air Force think they can control the internet because of National Security – bullshit. Ever heard of Swarm? Hack into any OS and any security level — yeah, good luck with that! “Oh it’s easy” riight, through all the firewalls, both hardware and software, all the patch levels, all the different operating systems and flaws and vulnerabilities and patches, all the different connection methods…. You’d need something the size of Solaris to do that, which sure as hell would not be a clever root-kit at that size.
Don’t take everything they scare you with to be 100% true.
But I degress, connect with your fans, Indianna has been doing that and that’s great! It’s what has helped her business grow, and I am sure she realizes it, but I doubt she realizes the significance of it. It helped her many times more than a label.
Hm.. no facts to back that up? Fine, let’s pick two p2p-ers, or more, even numbers, we’ll all create music and try the different methods we suggest. How’s an experiment strike you? We’ll have some pushing for the license/levy and others doing what we suggest, building a connection with fans and trusting them.
After a predetermined amount of time we can see the results, who’s instantly famous and broke then history and broke and who struggles at first but climbs up to a very comfortable living.
What do you all think of this experiment? We’ll need many volunteers as we all know “two examples don’t work for the masses” will be the first cop-out.
Cheers
~Robert
November 14th, 2009 at 9:59 am
” Just because I’m telling you about it, doesn’t mean I’m in favour of such a thing. Do environmentalists want the ice caps to melt? “Well, they keep making movies about it….. ”
I don’t see any of you publicly ( and I don’t mean here ) saying you don’t support it either. Not just you. There are a whole lot of artists. We don’t see any of them stepping forward and openly opposing it either. Watching a crime happen and doing nothing about it is nearly as bad.
” Our best chance of fighting the levy is for us to form a coalition of artists and consumers and we won’t be able to do that, Monkey, if you are demanding the abolition of copyright as the price we have to pay. ”
And here we have the ‘chicken and the egg ” syndrome. Which comes first ? If none of you are willing to openly refuse to support something that is clearly wrong, what’s our incentive to support your wishes ? You want our support, we want your support.. it becomes an impasse. A levy or 3 strikes isn’t a price We’re willing to pay. It almost sounds like you’re saying ‘back what we want or else’. I’m not sure how else to take that, and I’m certain i’m not alone.
November 14th, 2009 at 10:29 am
@Dreddsnik,
I think Billy explained that some artists are in NDA’s and can’t say anything without being crushed legally and financially.
That’s most likely why they are not voicing their opinions. Trent Reznor can because his contract was soon to be up back when the label says “$30 (Aussie) fine because your fans will pay for it” to which he replied “F–k you.” His comments and actions of mp3’s hidden in sewers or in bathrooms at concerts might have had some sort of repercussions or not.
But Billy’s explanations show not everyone can be so lucky.
That’s most likely why they are silent and not stepping forward.
November 14th, 2009 at 10:53 am
I realize that, and my hope is the ones that can will.
The artists want some show of ‘good faith’ from us, which puzzles me. Since fans continue to pay, even when free alternatives exsist, proven by the success of Itunes and allofMP3, isn’t that a pretty fair showing of good faith ?
Also, i’ve been pretty clear that copyright can’t vanish overnight and concede that getting shorter terms in increments, easing out legacy artists is reasonable. I’m not the only one who understands this, so saying the ‘you’ implying ALL of us want the instant abolishment of copyright is hyperbole, and not helpful.
If the artists that don’t support levies or 3 strikes and CAN speak out, actually DO so, that would be a show of good faith on their part as well, and I don’t think it’s to much to ask for.
November 14th, 2009 at 11:06 am
Robert,
The ones I speak to are not stepping forward because they don’t see anything to be gained arguing with a bunch of people who have only one model to offer artists – put out the begging bowl.
People on this site defend their right to download our music for free.
People on this site argue that we should not get any money from copyright, not from radio stations, tv stations, film licences.
People here argue that we cannot sell copies of our work anymore.
People here say that we should have honesty buttons on our websites.
And you wonder why artists are not clamouring to come here and get dismissively told how they are allowed to make a living? FFS.
Meanwhile, out in the real world, Trent Reznor, the artist who has arguably done the most to make the begging bowl model work, is quoted in this month’s Mojo magazine on his experience with asking people to pay for music on-line ‘I naively thought that if you gave the public a choice of doing the right thing, they would do it’.
November 14th, 2009 at 11:12 am
Dredd,
Take off your blinkers. This is not a chicken and egg situation.
The FAC want to exempt individual file-sharers from copyright lawand are willing to campaign for that goal. That is a significant shift of position by artists in favour of p2p.
Now, what have you got to bring to the table? Where is your reciprocal shift? What price are you willing to pay for an alliance between artists and file-sharers?
November 14th, 2009 at 11:32 am
@Billy
I didn’t say I was demanding an abolition of copyright, I thought my statement below made it clear that at least for me it’s an open topic for discussion.
I was just pointing out that as most musicians at the present time reject the abolition of copyright, the p2p community rejects an isp tax/levy. In order to come to a consensus both sides need to at least acknowledge where the other side won’t bend. I’ve acknowledged that the musicians feel the need for some form of copyright, but the form it takes needs to be debated, and formed by the artists and fans NOT as has been in the past the RIAA/MPAA. I think on the artists side there needs to be acknowledgment that the isp tax/levy won’t fly with the p2p crowd here and move on. What I would like to see abolished is the whole third party rightsholder system, so while there is copyright the artists own it for their works, NOT third party rights holders like the RIAA. As I’ve stated in another post this is not impossible, it’s already the case with book authors, they lease publishing rights for a set time period, when the time is up they can renegotiate or have their works published by someone else. I didn’t originate this idea, it actually came from an article published in Salon by in 2000 Courtney Love: http://www.salon.com/tech/feature/2000/06/14/love/index1.html
A relevant quote from it:
There may be legal implications to wresting rights back from contracts already signed(not that it shouldn’t be attempted) but I see no reason why a concerted, hard push from both musicians and fans couldn’t be made so that any future third party ownership of copyright could be prohibited.
November 14th, 2009 at 11:55 am
@Billy
People on this site argue that we should not get any money from copyright, not from radio stations, tv stations, film licences.
No they suggest you don’t rely on copyright to force people to pay. They try to say copyrights cause more problems because you simply cannot offer some form of limited control, that doesn’t work and cannot be legislated. At a Net Neutrality townhall an MP (I forget the name) said that MP’s know nothing about the internet or limited control, they only know how to lock it down. They don’t know how to balance. You’ll never get limited control like you want.
People here argue that we cannot sell copies of our work anymore. Not true, people said you cannot RELY SOLELY on selling copies of your work and force people to purchase copies of your work.
And you wonder why artists are not clamouring to come here and get dismissively told how they are allowed to make a living? FFS. Fair enough, but with forcing people to pay or forcing income is also seen as a “FFS” type of comment from us, who are tired of being told “you have to compromise” which we’ve been doing all along. Remember, we didn’t sign any contracts for 7 years or more. We simply had to try to get the content and for the longest time, once recording were available, it was controlled. Now it isn’t and the focus of the artists who share your views (not all do!) is “how do we get paid when free is available” and yet Allmp3.com is not thought of. Every time we suggest ways to get paid without the begging bowl you like to refer to, you just stick to acknowledging only things we suggest that you don’t agree with because they sound like begging, ignoring the other ideas.
So you have a strong sense of entitlement and that’s who you are. That’s how you come across anyhow.
Reznor already said that comment way back when Sol released the album for $5. So that’s nothing new. He also knows, as we have said, people will take for free if it is available. But, what you did NOT acknowledge and we have said here is that free has the potential to lead to financial support. “Bullshit” you can say, but Reznor made a lot more money from his “naive” experiment. He admits that also on his blog. He also explains in several posts on his blog how up and coming or new artists can use social networking sites, but also explains the pitfalls.
Basically, it is not black and white man! It is not “they all pay or steal” or “they all don’t do the right thing” because that’s been proven wrong already. Sorry, but you know people will take for free, some will later pay, others will not. But please comment on this, without ignoring it:
you have 10 000 people who’ve heard of you.
you put your music out for free, you find (somehow through DPI?) 200 000 unique IP address downloads.
you now have 200 000 people that have heard of you instead of 10 000.
assume 20% like you enough to support you.
10 000 -> 2000 people.
200 000 -> 40 000 people.
Which generates more income? Trent cannot deny that. And if he were on a label again, as he knows and Radiohead knows, the money they collect would be a small fraction of what they did collect.
So sure, instead of 8000 people not paying you have 160 000 people not paying, but you also have 38 000 more people who are paying! And that money goes to you.
Please comment on this without “sounds like a begging bowl” type of response to dismiss the ideas.
We at least explain the flaws with levies and copyright enforcement of payment methods with some sort of logic beyond “you’re just gouging us for money” as we actually explained that, as proven, levies attract more and more who are ‘dire need of support’ to the point where it chokes the system dry. Look at radio seriously and look at what crap is played, to be honest I’ve NEVER heard YOU on the radio here. I hear what the labels that control the radio want me to hear. So I don’t listen to it.
And radio used to be viewed as a promotional tool, used to be a good means to discover different artists, but those radio stations are gone thanks to copyright. And again, choosing “exemptions” for copyright will guarantee they will be abused by sudden non-profit or lossy commercial radio, while the other indy radio stations making enough to pay their DJ’s more than just free coffee will be deemed as “profit” making and destroyed.
Where there is a chance of abuse, it will be taken. Where there is a chance for free, it will be taken, but NOT EXCLUSIVELY!!!! Not all corporations will operate at a loss to avoid the copyrights just as not all people will take for free and not give in return.
So you can’t use that “they will take for free” as an excuse to dismiss our appearing begging bowl ideas. Maybe these suggested models will work, maybe not, but they won’t be any worse than copyrights, changed or otherwise.
And they at least give consumers, fans (2000 or 40 000) and non-paying consumers (8000 – 160 000) a choice instead of demand. The demand will result in worse results than the choice! That’s what we are trying to say and our evidence of a non-reduction in file sharing despite demands proves it, as well as iTunes/Allmp3/Reznor’s Ghosts income! That’s money for Trent not Nothing Records or Interscope Records and it’s more than he would have made with the old model.
Which situation is he better in? The old model or the begging bowl, as you refer to it?
November 14th, 2009 at 12:04 pm
@ Billy:
People on this site defend their right to download our music for free.
That’s a loaded statement akin to Are you still beating your wife?
The music (and all kinds of other material) is already out there and freely available, and has been since the 1990s. It’s there. End of story.
People on this site argue that we should not get any money from copyright, not from radio stations, tv stations, film licences.
No. They don’t.
People here argue that we cannot sell copies of our work anymore.
No. They don’t.
People here say that we should have honesty buttons on our websites.
No. They don’t.
With the exception of the first item, some of these points may have been raised, but never as categoric statements.
And you wonder why artists are not clamouring to come here and get dismissively told how they are allowed to make a living? FFS.
Another (over)loaded statement. Nothing of the kind has happened, or is happening.
Begging bowl?
Anger or inflamatory remarks like that (on anyone’s part) don’t help.
I’ve been the only mod for quite a few days and maybe I should have actually been moderating, instead of passing. But that’s hard to do on a text-only site like this, which is why Indy’s idea of face-to-face discussions is so good. Moderating then becomes possible.
“Meanwhile, out in the real world, Trent Reznor, the artist who has arguably done the most to make the begging bowl model work, is quoted in this month’s Mojo magazine on his experience with asking people to pay for music on-line ‘I naively thought that if you gave the public a choice of doing the right thing, they would do it’.”
That doesn’t work either. Trent is just one musician with one idea. Before he can make that kind of statement, a lot more similar projects have to be launched and given time to take hold.
You and I started this because we both think there has to be open communication between fans and artists, our mutual belief being artists need to be paid and fans want to pay them.
Everything else is up for grabs and and in my view, as I’ve said a few dozen times before, we need to start from square one to get to where we all want to go.
I’m still here and I’ve by no means given up on the idea that we can make things happen. And I’m quite sure I’m not alone.
How about you?
Cheers!
November 14th, 2009 at 12:23 pm
@robert
” how do we get paid when free is available” and yet Allmp3.com is not thought of. ”
I have brought up that model a lot on this site. No one has ever replied to address any mentions of it. It’s like the elephant in the room. It’s very weird.
November 14th, 2009 at 2:24 pm
Some legal info on AllofMP3, relating to the fact that it is indeed legal in russia, and pays its dues regularly and faithfully to the russian versions of the collective societies there.
http://www.allofmp3.ru/press/centre.shtml?s=993&d=12886483
They pay their collective societies. Their collective societies are supposed to pay the other pertinent collective societies. So ..
Money goes from allof to it’s collective society,
Russia’s collective society pays US ( or other country’s ) societies ?
Are the US ( or other country’s )collective societies getting that money ?
IF they are .. Are any of you arists seeing it ?
If Russia is doing it’s part by law, and paying your societies, and you are getting nothing, you should have a really big problem with your label.
If Russia is TRYING to do it’s part and pay, and YOUR country’s collective society is turning it’s nose up at the offered money .. you AREN’T getting what’s rightfully yours, and you should have a problem with that, and discuss it with your label.
In either case, ALLofMP3 is abiding by all of the laws of it’s country ( although I am sure ACTA is going to try it’s damndest to change that )paying money to where it’s supposed to go. Artists need to ask some very important questions of their labels about where the money from allofmp3 is going.
Wouldn’t most of you artists think so ?
I think the problem here is a really good model in direct competition with Apple and the 1.00 per track model that the labels insist on. Apple hates competition. The labels hate anyone doing anything that doesn’t follow the 1 dollar per track model. Other than that , I can’t see ANY logical reason why the labels worked so hard to close it down, only to fail, and THEN pressure credit card companies not to honor sales to a comepletely legal business. It boggles the mind and I REALLY don’t get why any mention of AllOfMP3 receives the sound of crickets chirping in the night. Artists should be outraged that they aren’t getting their cut .. if that’s the case, because the labels are slapping away the hand that is offering the cash.
November 14th, 2009 at 2:31 pm
Create an artists’ association that disavows use of copyright, that neutralises all copyright that may arise in their work (copyleft).
Crosbie Fitch 5th Nov
Things like royalties are archaic and unnecessary in the modern music world, regardless of how well-intentioned the purpose.
Steelwolf, today
The market for copies has ended.
Crosbie Fitch 25th Oct
We have faith that the fans WILL pay the artists when given a fair opportunity to, such as donate towards releases and a donate button
Robert, today
An artist page tipjar some of us feel is the only way to be certain an artist we like gets what we want him to have.
Dreddsnik 21st Oct
Trouble is that Trent has become a poster boy for the new business model. If he says he’s made a mistake in expecting people to put some money in the ‘tipjar’, then everyone takes note – labels and artists alike.
November 14th, 2009 at 2:37 pm
The quote you attributed to me was posted by Jon.
November 14th, 2009 at 2:43 pm
@ Billy:
The items you’ve quoted are individual views from individuals, not inclusive statements representing everyone on this, or any other, site.
You’re right about Trent, but his is virtually the only alternative voice out there.
Cheers!
November 14th, 2009 at 2:43 pm
@Dreddsnik
I’m just taking a guess here, and the artists can tell me if I’m off base, but I think in the current situation RIAA signed artists may not care for allofmp3.com or something like it because that model doesn’t generate them any money. In the case of allofmp3.com, from what I read the RIAA got it’s nose up in the air and refused to deal with ROMS, the Russian collection agency. So thanks to the RIAA, the artists got nothing from it. Under the current system if something like allofmp3.com were to be implemented in the U.K or U.S. the RIAA would take most of the money collected. Since the price is far less than the $1.00 per song iTunes charges that means the artists get virtually nothing. Once again, the 800lb gorilla is the RIAA and the whole bullshit 3rd party rightsholder system that predominates the music business.
November 14th, 2009 at 2:56 pm
” So thanks to the RIAA, the artists got nothing from it. ”
That’s kind of what I thought.
” Since the price is far less than the $1.00 per song iTunes charges that means the artists get virtually nothing.”
Possibly, but before it was attacked by the RIAA the sheer VOLUME of sales could potentially make up for the reduced price. It’s a damn good idea, and rather than work out suitable agreements the RIAA stamped it’s foot, took it’s toys and went home. Sales are supposedly really good for Itunes, just imagine the incredible volume of purchases possible with a more reasonable price point. Finding Torrents, setting up encrypted connections, making sure what you DL doesn’t have malware .. that’s a lot of hassle to get music that is DRM free. All of MP3 made it EASY, ridiculously easy and that attracted ( and still attracts ) a lot of customers who would rather pay. I still think it would be sensible to accept them and watch the massive volume of purchases more than make up for the reduced price point. That’s just my opinion, but we’ll never know becuase of the RIAA and their bullshit.
I’d really like to hear an a label artists comments on this but whenever it’s mentioned it remains strangely quiet, as though someone farted and no one wants to own up to it.
November 14th, 2009 at 4:52 pm
” Since the price is far less than the $1.00 per song iTunes charges that means the artists get virtually nothing.”
iTunes was for years a loss leader, and I’ve always seen it as a user-funded online iPod loader. I’m curious to know when it actually broke even, recouping initial investments, and started making money – if it ever did, considering label wholesale prices.
It’s an amazing promotional vehicle, for sure. What do artists get out of it? Good question.
Cheers!
November 14th, 2009 at 5:29 pm
Billy, “the market for copies has ended” isn’t the same as “artists cannot sell copies of their work”. I’ve tried to explain to you before the difference between a forbidding and business advice. Just as “there is no market selling snow to Sami” that doesn’t mean you cannot sell snow to them. They might feel sorry for you, but I wouldn’t recommend anyone invest in a business venture.
But anyway, you can’t create a market for copies by fiat. And as we find today, you can’t even create one by prohibiting people from making their own copies.
Let’s see. I could make a copy of ‘New England’ from the YouTube streamed file. I could then produce a few million copies. How much do you think I could get for each copy? Is there what anyone would consider a ‘market’ for those copies? Is there the same market for copies today that there was when you first sang that song? Will that market increase or diminish over the next few years?
The market for copies has ended Billy.
But hey, I’m not going to try and stop you selling them. You CAN sell copies if you want to. Go for it!
If there really was still a market in selling copies, we’d all be rich – given how easy it is to make copies for nothing these days.
But, don’t let the lack of a market stop you. If you want to sell copies I’m not going to demand a law to prevent you.
The market for copies has ended, but you can still TRY to sell copies.
However, the market for ART continues unabated, and that’s what I recommend artists focus on. Fans can make their own copies, but they can’t make your art. Wake up and smell the coffee. Sell that which there is a market for!
November 14th, 2009 at 5:34 pm
@Billy et. al.
How’s $1.6Million sound? That’s how much Reznor grossed WITH free downloads.
How’s that a bad thing? How’s that a mistake? I certainly do not make even 1% of that!
How much does your “tipjar” need in order for you to be satisfied? Considering people could have paid him nothing, 1.6 million dollars is pretty damn good and if he’s wise, it can last him a long time! ( http://www.wired.com/listening_post/2008/03/nine-inch-nai-2/ )
Now before you say it, we know you are not Trent Reznor and should not expect $1.6 million, but his “mistake” is not that bad. His mistake was not giving a tipjar, his mistake was assuming more people would pay than actually did. We never said everyone or even most would pay, but the fans paid!!!
How much does your tipjar have to be Billy before you feel you’ve been adquately paid? NO SARCASM – LEGITIMATE QUESTION
So Trent’s model DOES work, but it also takes a LOT of work. And again, and again, and AGAIN, you are not Trent so don’t expect $1.6 million — but we all know the sense of entitlement of EVERYONE (artists, fans, consumers, politicians, corporate leaders) is somewhere between a little high and way off the charts (imagine Al Gore with his scissor lift pointing to it).
Imagine if we took some of what Trent says and combined it with Indianna’s concerts at home for a small donation OR the donation towards the album she’s yet to release includes a ‘free’ concert, depending on the purchase price.
Forget ‘donation’ because to you that’s a “please, please I’m begging you to pay me” term. How about “price plan” ? What terminology works betst for you where you offer.. a CHOICE to consumers and potential fans, like Reznor did?
November 14th, 2009 at 5:53 pm
From Bringing Artists and Fans Together comment no. 8
November 14th, 2009 at 6:33 pm
Crosbie, you say “The market for copies has ended Billy.”
Robert, you tell me that Trent Reznor has made $1.6 million selling copies of his work.
You can’t have it both ways. Is there still a market for copies or has it ended?
November 14th, 2009 at 7:21 pm
Billy, the market for copies has ended. The market for art continues.
I suggest to you that people were paying Trent for his art, not for copies that they could make themselves for nothing.
This is the paradigm shift. Soon you will stop trying to see exchanges between artists and their fans in terms of the sale of copies, and start seeing them in terms of the sale of art.
‘Soon’, being about 12 months or so… depending upon how stubborn you are.
November 14th, 2009 at 8:42 pm
Well gosh,
you ‘Got’ me. I didn’t remeber that post. Now read it read it with your ‘blinkers’ off.
Now that you have read the whole thing, i’ll explain PRECISELY what I meant.
Mysteron asked if a ‘tipjar’ was too ‘needy’.
In my own opinion, I didn’t think so, not at all. Now my next statement …
” An artist page tipjar some of us feel
is the only way to be certain an artist
we like gets what we want him to have. ”
Refers to the fact that some of the the folks one the site, over the past nine years of reading different opinions and posts on p2pnet think that’s the only way to be sure their money makes it directly to the artists of their choice, bypassing the middleman. It’s an opinion repeatedly brought up over the course of YEARS by many different posters. Some feel it’s the only way, I feel personally feel there are several ways, but some certain individuals, that aren’t me, nor are related to me, nor have I personally met, expressed this opinion, and I chose to relay that in the context of Mysteron’s question.
Such an opinion is just that, an opinion, not shared by all, not necessarily shared by me, but relayed for informational purposes in answer to a reasonable question, and was not to be taken as an order, or a definitive course of action.
Feel better now ?
November 14th, 2009 at 9:18 pm
@Billy
I think there is a market for copies, if they are marketed right. Hell I’ll even give you an example.
This obviously wouldn’t work for a new, unknown band, but I think it would sell for an established band with a big fan base.
November 14th, 2009 at 11:01 pm
Folks, quote correctly, please.
http://www.wired.com/listening_post/2008/03/nine-inch-nai-2/ writes:
Among the physical products were 2.500 ultra-value packages for $300 the piece. Those were sold out March 4th. That’s $750.000 or almost half of that $1.6M in two days.
Read: http://www.wired.com/listening_post/2008/03/nine-inch-nails/ and you’ll see that NIN offered REAL VALUE to their fans.
They did not make $1.6M from selling copies but from selling art!
November 14th, 2009 at 11:07 pm
Crosbie,
Here’s the breakdown of Trent’s $1.6 million”
As previously reported, the $300 Ultra-Deluxe Limited Edition ofGhosts I-IV immediately sold out its run of 2500. The $5 Download, $10 2XCD set and $75 Limited Edition Deluxe versions are still available at NIN.com.
http://www.wired.com/listening_post/2008/03/nine-inch-nai-2/
So given he made $750,000 from the ultra-deluxe version, that still leaves $850,000 that he made from the ordinary downloads and the $75 deluxe version. Looks like selling copies to me.
Dredd, everything here is ‘just an opinion’. If you don’t believe it, why pay it.
Monkey, you just stumbled across the big hole in the Trent Reznor model – you have to be well known to be able to sell the ultra-deluxe version for $350. As you point out, it won’t work for an unknown band
November 14th, 2009 at 11:17 pm
” Dredd, everything here is ‘just an opinion’. If you don’t believe it, why pay it. ”
ummm , huh ?
I’m afraid you’ve lost me there.
The preceding statements are an opinion, not necessarily shared by all, relayed for informational purposes and are not to be taken as an order, or a definitive course of action.
November 14th, 2009 at 11:19 pm
Dredd,
Are you going to respond to this?
November 14th, 2009 at 11:35 pm
Sure.
I have a 5 dollar bill in my wallet, and a picture of my cat.
Is that a good start ?
The preceding statements are an opinion, not necessarily shared by all, relayed for informational purposes and are not to be taken as an order, or a definitive course of action.
November 14th, 2009 at 11:42 pm
She was a really good cat. She lived to be 23 years old so the picture has great sentimental value to me. I also have a sister in law i’m willing to part with. She’s quite a good cook but it would be nice if she lived on a different continent than I.
The preceding statements are an opinion, not necessarily shared by all, relayed for informational purposes and are not to be taken as an order, or a definitive course of action.
November 15th, 2009 at 4:52 am
Billy, one can always sell the value one has added to a copy, e.g. the material and packaging. One can sell books, but there is no market for copies of its text.
Thus WikiTravelPress can sell books, but there is no market for copies of the text WikiTravel.
When people appear to be purchasing MP3 files they are actually patronising the artist.
I’ve never said you can’t sell the value you add to a copy, but then that’s not the copy you’re selling, but the added value.
There’s the market for intellectual work, for art, and then there’s the market for value added products based on it.
If the MP3 file is worth nothing, but the special vinyl edition with glossy cover is worth $100, where do you think the market price comes from? The music or the value added to it by the packaging?
It is copyright that gives the artist the conceit that a large proportion of the added value came from their music, and this that gives them the idea they deserve a law that forces anyone who sells a copy to give them a royalty.
November 15th, 2009 at 7:17 am
Here’s an example of someone who’s realised that the market for copies has ended:
http://updiggers.blogspot.com/2009/11/musicians-and-mona-lisa-effect.html
So, Billy, it can be done. Don’t give up hope. You CAN make the paradigm shift. It’s just not going to happen overnight.
Don’t sell copies. Sell recordings.
Let duplicators and packagers sell vinyl pressings. Artists should focus on selling their art to their fans, not glossy packaging.
November 15th, 2009 at 9:55 am
Crosbie,
The trouble with your argument is that it assumes that the mp3 file is worth nothing. The facts don’t back this up. Here in the UK 98% of singles sales are digital and people are buying them like never before:
2009 has already become the biggest ever year for UK singles with more than 117m sold to date. Driven by a strong release schedule and a burgeoning range of online music services in the UK, new data from the Official Charts Company shows that sales of single tracks in 2009 have now surpassed the previous all-time record of 115.1m, set in 2008. The total of 117m has been reached with 10 weeks of trading, including the vital Christmas period, still to run in 2009.
If mp3 files are worth nothing, as you claim, how do you explain this huge surge in their sales?
November 15th, 2009 at 10:07 am
” 2009 has already become the biggest ever year for UK singles with more than 117m sold to date. Driven by a strong release schedule and a burgeoning range of online music services in the UK, ”
With such strong sales, and no sign of a decrease, with files sharing just as high as it always was, it’s pretty clear the labels can compete quite effectively with free, so no levy is needed.
The preceding statements are an opinion, not necessarily shared by all, relayed for informational purposes and are not to be taken as an order, or a definitive course of action.
November 15th, 2009 at 10:47 am
” Now, what have you got to bring to the table? Where is your reciprocal shift? What price are you willing to pay for an alliance between artists and file-sharers? ”
Now that i’ve had a night to think about this, and considering that no ones willing to bend or compromise, at least in this thread, Here is my answer.
I have already given up buying any RIAA or MPAA media. Before you jump in and say ‘AHA ! I KNEW you were a THIEF ‘ , I don’t need to download anything other than the drivers and antivirus software I already need for the PC work I do. It’s only a blocks walk to the public library. They have a nicely full collection that I can borrow from at any time ( on the music end of it ), and that has served nicely for 9 years. Movies reach the ‘free’ portion of my on-demand cable quite soon enough for me, but in the past 5 years there really hasn’t been much of anything I really cared enough about to watch for. So I haven’t paid for ANY media in 9 years, gotten anything I really wanted through completely legiimate channels, with minimal effort. I am not unique. The labels and the movie studios know this. That’s why they want a levy. With a levy in place it won’t matter if everyone on the planet did what I do, they will always have a full revenue stream to terrorize and litigate ( and maybe throw a little to the artists, if they feel like it ).
They don’t need to worry about content or quality or anything, really. They’re officially set for life. So those of us on the boycott side are totally rendered moot, right ?
What are YOU willing to risk ?
For me personally, of course I can never speak for all, but as long as artists are willing to throw the fans under a bus in support of what they not only know is a bad idea, but also renders the customer base impotent I am willing to back legislation that insures that you NEVER get your rights back. Yup I know it sounds spiteful but eventually label artists will be a thing of the past as newer acts wise up and never sign away their rights to begin with. It will be a much longer time coming since all we are willing to do now is threaten each other with stupid stuff, but it is the ONLY backlash left once voting with the wallet is removed.
Now are we going to continue to bicker over minutiae ?
Or, are we going to try to find some middle ground.?
The preceding statements are an opinion, not necessarily shared by all, relayed for informational purposes and are not to be taken as an order, or a definitive course of action.
November 15th, 2009 at 11:59 am
@ Dredd:
“I have already given up buying any RIAA or MPAA media.”
Just to keep things in perspective (and not meant as a dig, Dredd) you haven’t stopped buying RIAA or MPAA stuff. They’re just public faces — ‘trade’ and PR organisations. They front (principally) for: Vivendi Universal (France), Sony (Japan), EMI (Britain), and Warner Music (US, but controlled by a Canadian): and, Disney, News Corp, Time Warner, Viacom, NBC Universal and Sony Pictures.
There’s also the BPI (British Phonographic Industry); IFPI (International Federation of Phonographic Industry); CRIA (Canadian Recording Industry Association of America); FACT (Federation Against Copyright Theft), etc and so on, and not forgetting the BSA (Business Software Alliance), lurking in the wings.
Cheers!
November 15th, 2009 at 12:31 pm
” Just to keep things in perspective (and not meant as a dig, Dredd) you haven’t stopped buying RIAA or MPAA stuff. They’re just public faces — ‘trade’ and PR organisations. ”
I realize that. I also realize that just by virtue of paying for cable, I still indirectly support them. Their reach is very long, and it doesn’t need to be longer.
My post was extreme, but a point needed to be illustrated.
Both sides are completely capable of harming the other, to the detriment of everyone. A ‘why should I help you, what can you give me ‘ posture is totally destructive, and a pure delight to any label reps that read here. I can almost picture them giggling. We can choose to bicker and threaten or demand, or do what we SAID we were going to do, and that is try to reach some constructive middle ground in which we could actually band together as a group. It’s not likely to happen if it continues to be a game of ‘what can you give me’. It can only happen when it becomes ‘what can we achieve together. Acting like American politicians, who make a regular habit of harming the opposition, even if their ideas are good, to the overall detriment of their constituents will get nowhere.
What does Billy EXPECT us to ‘give’ him ?
I can only guess.
And if he asks directly for it, I can only answer for me.
It was an unanswerable question.
But now that it’s out there .. the truth is I would never REALLY support legislation that would insure the rightful owners can never get back what is theirs. I hope my point is illustrated.
And one more thing, and I hope the meaning is understood, if one already has a preconceived notion of the opposition, one will always take the others opinion in the worst possible light. If you really want to, by changing around the letters in my last post you will find all the letters necessary to create the sentence ..’Dreddsnik worships Satan and kicks puppies’. That doesn’t mean that’s what I chose to convey, or that the statement is true.
November 15th, 2009 at 1:13 pm
@everyone
There has been a lot of back and forth here about how no one is willing to “compromise”. This is not true, ppuk suggested a compromise involving the shortening of the duration of copyright as well as not having it applied to individuals for personal use. To this I added the idea of a legislative ban on third party copyright holders, so the the people holding the copyrights are the artists, not the RIAA. On the intransigent p2p side you have some who wish to abolish copyright entirely even though so far none of the artists here will agree to that. On the artists side some want an isp tax/levy even though that idea is LOATHED by almost everyone from the p2p side. I know Billy said he doesn’t support it but his, “it’s coming and there is nothing you can do about it so roll over and take it” attitude is not helpful to this discussion.
November 15th, 2009 at 3:08 pm
” This is not true, ppuk suggested a compromise involving the shortening of the duration of copyright as well as not having it applied to individuals for personal use. ”
Yes. And Billy also asked about support for the return of rights to the artist after 35 years. This article …
http://a2f2a.com/2009/11/14/copyright-bomb-set-to-explode/
Shows that the US already has something similar to what BB is asking about, so there is current precedent for he wants for the artists. Once again, I don’t see any problem with this. Copyright can’t just be whisked away with a magic wand, everyone should be prepared to be weaned into changes. As I commented on in the aforementioned article, I wasn’t aware that the US even had a provision like this, and I’m pretty sure this is the reason that the labels are pushing extra hard in the US to get major extensions pushed through. They want to get rid of another reasonable policy. Since most people don’t even know the very basic tenets of copyright it would be easy for the labels to make this provision vanish without anyone noticing. That’s something we shouldn’t allow.
The preceding statements are an opinion, not necessarily shared by all, relayed for informational purposes and are not to be taken as an order, or a definitive course of action.
November 15th, 2009 at 3:52 pm
Monkey,
I am not saying that you have to roll over and take the levy. I am simply communicating to you what I am hearing from my contacts in intellectual property rights. Not only are they seeking a levy, they are also developing ‘internet passports’ that will effectively create a two tier web that destroys net neutrality by excludes those that don’t sign up to their way of doing things.
I am not threatening you with these examples, simply trying to get you to understand what is at stake here. The best way to oppose these developments is for artists and consumer to work together, because neither developments will benefit us.
With regard to compromises, I am here because FAC is campaigning to have individual file-sharers removed from the scope of copyright law. Does anyone here recognise that this is a significant move by the artist community away from the industry’s insistance on persecuting individual file-sharers?
November 15th, 2009 at 4:01 pm
” With regard to compromises, I am here because FAC is campaigning to have individual file-sharers removed from the scope of copyright law. Does anyone here recognise that this is a significant move by the artist community away from the industry’s insistance on persecuting individual file-sharers? ”
Yes.
The preceding statements are an opinion, not necessarily shared by all, relayed for informational purposes and are not to be taken as an order, or a definitive course of action.
November 15th, 2009 at 4:05 pm
So, what do you WANT from us that we are not already doing .. writing lawmakers, faxing ,phoning, voting, making others aware etc ..
The preceding statements are an opinion, not necessarily shared by all, relayed for informational purposes and are not to be taken as an order, or a definitive course of action.
November 15th, 2009 at 4:16 pm
Billy, obviously reality is far more complicated than can be summarised in an aphorism, but if YOU want to understand future business models then you should recognise that the market for copies has ended.
But, of course, you can still point to the residual momentum of traditional markets, traditional copyright based business models, and the large numbers of people still operating in terms of buying and selling copies.
Either you face the past and file-sharers need to be ‘educated’ to respect copyright, but otherwise it’s business as usual, OR you face the future, suspect that there’s a revolution underfoot, and wonder if perhaps copyright’s days are numbered.
Get back to me when you too realise that the market for copies has ended, and you want to know how artists can sell their art instead.
November 15th, 2009 at 4:27 pm
Billy asked:
“If mp3 files are worth nothing, as you claim, how do you explain this huge surge in their sales?”
I would say that, at the moment, there is a very real ‘value’ for mp3s for many customers. My mom, dad, and a LOT of my peers (21-35 year olds, dominantly) are aware of downloading, are aware that they can get stuff ‘for free’ through p2p, and are largely capable of doing so. The value added in selling digital content through iTunes and other media portals include:
(1) certainty that the content they are downloading is what is says it is (i.e. if they download something by Moby from iTunes, they don’t need to worry that they’ll actually end up downloading a track from another artist);
(2) often speed – p2p is throttled by ISPs for various reasons, and direct downloads from central servers tend to be faster than other means of getting content;
(3) broad content repositories – they don’t need to spend 15+ minutes tracking down an album, confirming that the album is ‘real’, and so on. they can just go to one location and download it, as well as much of the other content they may be interested in;
(4) absolute ease of use in finding content;
(5) integration into OS environments (e.g. download a media file in iTunes or other content delivery system and it automatically places it in the library, builds a minor play list, etc etc)
(6) is immaterial
Now, (6) is what often makes people say ‘you’re selling a copy – it has no value!’, but where people remain with the idea that CDs and DVDs are the ‘alternate’ way of purchasing AND that those physical containers take up space, the immateriality of mp3s actually adds value.
Now, will some of (1) – (6) change over time? Sure. But at the moment we should at least analytically distinguish between consumer realities now, versus what they will or could be in 5 or 10 years. This isn’t to say that we shouldn’t engage in both discussions, but recognize that there are different variables to consider in different temporal situations.
November 15th, 2009 at 5:11 pm
A revolution? Just because you can download stuff without having to pay for it? Crosbie, you’re just like the hippies who thought there would be a revolution just because they could get high.
November 15th, 2009 at 5:21 pm
We want your support for our efforts to get paid when our work is exploited for commercial gain.
Our campaign ‘where money is made, artists must get paid’ is a double edged attack on exploitation without remuneration and the prosecution of file-sharers. We seek to move the current copyright laws away from permission and towards remuneration.
November 15th, 2009 at 6:09 pm
Billy, while you petition for the return of your copyrights, argue about royalties, and suggest that perhaps individuals should not be disconnected if they had no commercial interest in their infringement, I’ll be focussed on the means of enabling artists to sell their art to their fans. It may well seem to you like a foolish pursuit, even a drug induced delusion, especially if you perceive the market for copies to be going from strength to strength (whether or not the price is protected by the monopoly of copyright). It’s up to you if you wish to remain in the comfort of the past, but other artists, whether you think them foolish or not, are adopting new business models more suited to a future without copyright, a future where copies are so ubiquitous we no longer notice them.
November 15th, 2009 at 6:19 pm
Support for what specific policies ?
We’ve already said we support artists getting paid for their work. What specific policies are you expecting us to endorse.
What particularly do you have in mind, aside from flaming Crosbie ?
Support you how ?
November 15th, 2009 at 6:26 pm
” Our campaign ‘where money is made, artists must get paid’ is a double edged attack on exploitation without remuneration and the prosecution of file-sharers. We seek to move the current copyright laws away from permission and towards remuneration. ”
I mean seriously, this sounds good ( I don’t like the slogan, so what ? )
I like it.
Now
What exactly do you want us to do, specifically to show support ?
November 15th, 2009 at 6:55 pm
” We seek to move the current copyright laws away from permission and towards remuneration. ”
Yes, I ‘get’ this. US currently has this. UK doesn’t. There is no reasonable explanation for why UK artists shouldn’t have it.
I am full ‘on-board’ with 1 of the two edges so far.
” exploitation without remuneration and the prosecution of file-sharers. ”
This edge is the tricky one and I am beginning to see where and why things are breaking down here.
It’s the levy.
In the minds of the majority of you, and this is just a guess, I just KNOW you’ll be happy to correct me if i’m wrong, a levy or ISP tax or whatever anyone chooses to call it will ‘ end the exploitation of artists on the internet’ and ‘end the prosecution of file sharers’.
It seems so reasonable, but many of us have already explained why we feel it’s the wrong way to go, and I think we have made some very valid points. So the other edge to me is very very dull, and I personally can’t stand behind that.
I’m with you ALL THE WAY on adjusting current copyright laws, but I have a feeling that’s just not good enough for you. I feel like the only way you would truly believe we are ’supporting’ you is if we accept both edges. And if we can’t accept both points with equal fervor then therefore we are ‘against’ you.
Well, I personally, will never see a levy as a positive thing and will never back, or recommend anyone else back anything like it. That doesn’t mean I don’t support the artists. I’m sorry if you can’t believe that, but it’s true.
I hope you get your 35 year return, i’ll push for it, I can even smile about it, but I will never back a levy .. ever.
Have I come close ?
If I’m wromg I welcome the kick in the pants I so richly deserve.
The preceding statements are an opinion, not necessarily shared by all, relayed for informational purposes and are not to be taken as an order, or a definitive course of action.
November 15th, 2009 at 10:58 pm
I’d like to see some kind of manifesto on things at least MOST of us could come to agreement on. A possible example of this is below.
What the artists seem to want:
* Compensation for commercial use of their work, an example being a large corporate radio operation like Clearchannel.
* continuation of copyright, as it applies to for profit corporate entities
What the p2p crowd wants
* Cessation of RIAA lawsuits, could be brought about by exempting non profit use from copyright, possible exemption could also apply to non profit web cast stations.
* As has been shown from MANY postings here a net tax/levy is loathsome to the p2p crowd. I believe Billy when he states that the RIAA is going to try to jam that down our throats. As the majority of the p2p crowd is willing to support artists in their effort to collect from big profit corporations for use of their work, I would LOVE to see a loud, public statement from the artist that they DON’T support an isp tax levy, and that anything proposed by the RIAA is NOT as they will no doubt claim “for the artists” but for themselves.
* Almost every action the RIAA takes is always in the name of “the artists”, it would be nice to hear a public shout out from the artists that they have received no fiduciary compensation for any of the lawsuits so publicly proclaimed to be in their name, and that they oppose them. What I’m really asking here is for the artists to take a nice diarrhea dump on the RIAA’s propaganda machine.
* A shortening of the duration time of copyright, so that someone wouldn’t be born, grow old, shrivel up and die before a work became public domain.
Beneficial to both sides – I know I sound like a broken record on this, but push, push, PUSH for artists retention of rights!!
This is just a template, but it would be helpful if we could come up with SOMETHING like this and start pushing for it.
November 15th, 2009 at 11:17 pm
Crosbie,
Fair enough. It is time for you and I to accept that our positions are irreconcilable and agree to disagree, before we bore the pants off of everyone and each other with this pointless ping-pong.
November 15th, 2009 at 11:22 pm
@Christopher Parsons
Sorry, but all those values you described are NOT values inherent in the copy. Those are added values. Ironically those values are not added by the artist but by iTunes (or any other provider).
So it sounds like the market for copies is dead. The market for value not – how could he?
This rather old Kevin Kelly post is a nice read on this issue:
http://www.kk.org/thetechnium/archives/2008/01/better_than_fre.php
@Billy Bragg
I think no music fan in the world has a problem with “where money is made, artists must get paid”. I think you are addressing the wrong people here. Talk to your labels, talk to your collecting societies (ASCAP, BMI, etc.), talk to your distributors, talk to your retailers – clean up this messy industry. Practices in that industry (e.g. exclusive deals) prevent you guys from getting paid. Not your fans or the people here.
Same story with the “use it or lose it”. To me such a claim seems like common sense, but what has the P2P community or your fans to do with that???? It’s a probelm you guys are having in your industry. Automotive components suppliers never contacted me saying “the OEMs are so mean – they are squeezing us” (they actually do…).
Hope you don’t get me wrong. I believe everybody here wants artists to get paid – for the value they deliver at least! However, if some industry practice is preventing you from delivering that value YOU need to change that. If we can help you with that let us know how, but don’t expect us to agree to fuzzy far-fetched proposals about levies or changes in copyright that only help maintaining the status quo.
[Even though I use "we" I can only speak for myself - "we" sounds better, though
]
November 15th, 2009 at 11:36 pm
Dredd,
I dunno why you still think that I am in favour of a levy. Artists won’t see any money from such a tax – it will all go to the labels.
I am against a levy in principle.
And anyway, even if I was for it, I am not asking that you sign up to a manifesto of commitments. Adjusting copyright is good enough for me – provided it is the staring point of our joint manifesto and not only thing we can agree on. To answer your question what do I want from you and the other p2p users here – I want expressed support for ‘where money is made, artists must be paid’ as a first step in building a consensus about how to deal with the issues that we all feel strongly about
Monkey, I’d happily sign up to all your points apart for the shortening of copyright, which is not popular among artists, as it has the potential to secure our rights back under our own control for the extension period.
Can I stress that FAC are committed to a programme of education aimed at teaching young bands to hold onto their rights. It’s too late for most 20th century acts – their hope lies in reversions as part of the proposed EU extension.
November 16th, 2009 at 7:25 am
@ Monkey D. Luffy:
Just a quick point. I believe the RIAA, and other, lawsuits have all-but stopped. What we’re seeing is the continuation of existing lawsuits. All the movie and music industry efforts now seem to be focused on the three strikes scheme, and that’s what has to be dealt with.
On, March 12, “The inaugural meeting of the U.K.’s Featured Artists’ Coalition (FAC) in London resulted in a vote among its members opposing any measures that criminalize file-sharing,” said Billboard, going on >>>
So what happened between then and now?
Lily Allen happened.
I believe artists – the FAC in particular – must come out firmly and definitely against the Three Strikes farce. It’ll take cojones, but it’ll be the strategically and tactically smart thing to do. Even if it’s adopted, three strikes won’t last. Anywhere. It can’t. And the backlash against anyone who supports it will be enormous.
Cheers!
(PS – I’ve aways found it interesting that when the three strikes ‘graduated response’ thing was originally introduced in the US, Rupert Murdoch’s WSJ was chosen as the launch pad. The same thing happened with the Lily Allen debacle, but on this occasion it was his Times, drawing from his MySpace.)
November 16th, 2009 at 7:37 am
@ Billy
I’m confused about the FACs position. The Air statement “3 Strikes and Squeeze” seems to be the exact opposite of the “FAC campaigning to have individual file-sharers removed from the scope of copyright law”. The FAC keeps changing it’s mind.
@ everyone
Just an observation.
When I read some of the replies in these threads, I can’t help but point out the mixed messages from the p2p advocates here.
For example: @robert claims that p2p is a great promotional tool and puts forth a case whereby 20% of say 100 thousand will buy an artist/bands record after they’ve downloaded it from a p2p network. But, in return, out of say 100k people, 80k more people will have been exposed to your music even though only 20% of them bought it.
So, if p2p is such a great promotional vehicle and if the community is hoping to boycott the RIAA then, why are p2p users promoting the RIAA’s music? For example, (in Dresddnik’s case), he’s saying that p2p hopes to boycott the RIAA’s music (presumably by not buying it), so, wouldn’t it send a bigger message to the RIAA to simply remove all RIAA funded music from all p2p networks? Because most of you are defending this thought that p2p is not hurting sales of the major label’s music. You are also saying that it indeed ‘helps’ sell that music. (And Dresddnik says he hasn’t bought media for 9 years.)
If you all are hoping to boycott the RIAA, (not to point out the obvious) both arguments can’t be right.
And with regards to promotion, according to @robert’s theory, the vast majority of people will search for music that they’ve never heard of before! We all know that is not the case (which means that the music that the majority of p2p users are searching for has already been promoted in some way or another. Hence, the reason why 100% of the people who downloaded it have searched for it in the first place, even though only 20% made the decision to buy… in @ Robert’s scenario)
Outside of this observation, even if an ISP/telecom levy isn’t introduced, have you anything to say about a public license for websites who exploit music? (the first prong)?
November 16th, 2009 at 7:45 am
Something really does need to be done about 3-strikes.
Whether we like it or not, with 3-strikes, money will be taken out of our pockets: we are The tax payers, the ISP & mobile phone subscribers and it’s likely to be a double-whammy. If they were able to pass Hadopi 2 in France, what makes you think that 3-strikes won’t likely pass in the UK? And clearly, it will cost a small fortune. In France, they’re talking about 50k internet users likely to be ‘cut off’ by Hadopi.
http://www.connexionfrance.com/news_articles.php?id=1154
Below link: EU backed down on making the internet a ‘fundamentally right’ earlier this month (how a couple of words in the text changes everything). “The agreed text does not meet the challenge of clearly preserving a fundamental right of access to the net.”
http://www.businessweek.com/globalbiz/content/nov2009/gb2009116_710422.htm
The reality of it all is that ISPs are doing deals with the major labels (Virgin & Universal for example… which, by the way, was mentioned in the Mandelson letter that I sent the Jon posted in an earlier thread ” That is why we welcomed the recent announcement by Virgin Media and Universal on the launch of 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.”-he wrote ). See also: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8100394.stm So, it’s in their interest to go along with the three-strikes push. Once they’ve all sewn up joint-venture deals with the ISPs, what’s next?
Personally, reading between the lines here, I see 3-strikes as a distraction. It’s a front to weave in a new set of laws which will ultimately lead to legislation towards the personal ID system and ‘internet passports’. And although half the web thought I was a little crazy last year for mentioning it, here we have Kaspersky’s point of view only a year later: http://www.zdnetasia.com/insight/security/0,39044829,62058697,00.htm?tag=mncol;txt
Now, that may all seem a bit ‘outside the box’ for something like ‘copyright’ to have initiated, but, copyright has become a great excuse for it. And, not to mention, you have a majority of people who are likely to go along with it all because they will more than likely see net anonymity as a problem just like Kaspersky does. (and it is a problem when it comes down to serious crime e.g. terrorism, pedophiles, etc.) And the whole thing introduces deep packet inspection, (somebody will make a few quid with that) and loads more.
And then, even if Hadopi hadn’t passed and even if there is a public outcry over 3-strikes, you have ACTA joining the parade in a huge way: http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2009/nov/11/acta-trade-agreement
The FAC really needs to renounce it’s ‘Three Strikes and Squeeze’ statement soon and in a big way.
November 16th, 2009 at 9:19 am
Indiana, no-one is in control of anyone else, and that is only perceived as a problem by publishing corporations (and their enthralled artists). So the last thing the proponents of cultural liberty can do is tell file-sharers to share only copyleft works. We can recommend that, but we aren’t into wasting our time commanding the tide.
The best thing to do is to figure out what you ARE in control of and proceed on that basis.
1) Artists are in control of producing and publishing their art.
2) Fans are in control of their money and which artists they would incentivise.
All that’s needed is a means of exchange that doesn’t involve publishers or collection societies who’ll take the lion’s share.
Everything else is immaterial. You can plead with the moon to force people to respect your monopolies. You can appeal to the king to force people who add value to copies of your art to give you a royalty. You can beg the government to tax the people to provide you with a subsistence income (with bonuses based on popularity).
You have to decide: do you seek the power to collect a levy, or control what people do with your art, or do you seek to sell your art to your fans?
There are strangely very few people into discussing the latter.
Consider a couple of typical perspectives:
a) My publisher must have the power to enforce his 18th century privilege that prevents you making your own copies for nothing, in order that he can sell you copies instead.
b) All those who would incentivise me to produce a new single, please visit my Kickstarter page X.
Those artists with a proud history, choose ‘a’.
Those artists with a bright future, choose ‘b’.
I expect this philosophical polarisation between artists will become increasingly apparent, and neatly divide between signed/traditionalists and indie/youngsters.
November 16th, 2009 at 9:39 am
@Jon
Thanks for bringing up the three strikes issue, I had forgotten to add that to the list. I do stand by my statement on file sharer lawsuits, even if most or all of them are ongoing and not new they need to stop.
November 16th, 2009 at 10:19 am
@ Monkey D. Luffy
I know what you mean, and I’ll soon be doing a p2pnet follow-up on one of the most important of the ongoing lawsuits. But for now, I think they’re pretty much on hold – or at least, they’ve stopped suing everyone and his brother. And sister. And aunt and uncle. And …
Cheers!
November 16th, 2009 at 11:04 am
@Jon
As soon as the first judge officially decided to call out the RIAA lawyers on continuing to misjoinder the the cases, after they had long been ordered to stop doing it, and other judges started wanting more evidence, the RIAA seemed to stop. Being unable to misjoinder cases makes it much more expensive for the RIAA to proceed, requiring the RIAA lawyers to provide evidence pretty much ends their cases. The 3 strikes business is a means to do an ‘end-around’ the Courts.
@Indiana
” So, if p2p is such a great promotional vehicle and if the community is hoping to boycott the RIAA then, why are p2p users promoting the RIAA’s music? For example, (in Dresddnik’s case), he’s saying that p2p hopes to boycott the RIAA’s music (presumably by not buying it), so, wouldn’t it send a bigger message to the RIAA to simply remove all RIAA funded music from all p2p networks? ”
Not hoping to, ARE.
Jon can vouch for this ( I hope ), one of the things I’ve said repeatedly at P2P.net is Don’t download, don’t buy, but if you must have it, get it second hand. I for one have lived by that for the past 10 years. I’ve gotten a lot of my friends to as well. One might ask how someone would get the NEW sutff that way .. well I have some bad new for some artists, a great majority of the ‘new’ stuff hits the second hand shelves and pawn shops after a bout a week of initial release .. tops. It’s really hard to find a LOT of classic rock artists, but the second hand shelves are always loaded with the latest and greatest. You can come up with your own theory as to why that happens.
Thing is, we can ask all we want, but no one can control the ‘Release Groups’. I am NOT saying it all their fault but if the ‘groups’ decided to stop pushing label material, it would help. I guess indirectly it does. Though we DO NOT ENDORSE THIS BEHAVIOR some DO want their cake and eat it. They want to boycott, yet still want some label crap. It is inevitable that there will be people like that. Bottom line .. We’re not the boss of anyone and can only ask people to boycott.
And I haven’t bought in 9 or 10 years, outside of the previous ruleset. I either buy second hand, or go to the library. Those are both completely legal, so far, and no label gets any of MY money. Sales WILL take a much bigger hit as more people head to second hand shops, not only because of a boycott, but simply because of a poor economy. When that happens, do you think the labels will acknowledge it, or will they simply blame sharers.
No, there is no mixed message in my stance and my actions.
The preceding statements are an opinion, not necessarily shared by all, relayed for informational purposes and are not to be taken as an order, or a definitive course of action.
November 16th, 2009 at 2:55 pm
@Indianna and Dredd
Mass marketing and promo work for p2p too, as does supply and demand.
November 17th, 2009 at 5:35 am
@ Dreddsnik
I’m presuming the library you go to is ‘free’ and it’s either a public or University library?
November 17th, 2009 at 10:17 am
@Indiana Gregg
They have any other kind?
November 17th, 2009 at 11:17 am
Yes, it is.
Yes, they did pay for those copies, I know that.
If the library pays for 10 copies of your CD, and I convince 100 people to check it out from the library rather than purchase it, the boycott still has teeth. As the economy worsens, it will become easier to get people to use the library than the store. More will use the pawn shops, nore will use their CD burners.
November 24th, 2009 at 8:01 pm
Just a very short note, that relates to the issue of ‘net passports.
They are, in all likelihood, coming. The claim that we don’t hear about them is simply a result of weak reporting skills by most of the world’s reporters. A colleague of mine is working on the role of identity cards in Spain, and from the various EU and military contracting companies that are invested in testing these cards and spreading them throughout the EU it is only a matter of time until ID card and ‘net access are drawn together. The Spanish ID cards are designed to authenticate to a computer, and can hold a truly massive amount of information (everything from drivers license information, mortgage information, magazine subscriptions, etc). From the various contracting companies, the only thing that is holding back the injection of this information into all Spanish ID cards are:
(1) laws, which are gradually being weakened in Spain over time;
(2) cost of ID card readers, and first-generation technology interoperability issues (i.e. works with Windows, and not much else)
Both of these hurdles will be overcome, unless there are significant changes to privacy legislation in the EU. Given that EU regulations are presently being crafted to create an interoperable identity system whereby users of Spanish, Italian, and other EU IDs could be used and traced across jurisdictions, it’s safe to say that this isn’t just a ‘Spanish’ issue. While I’m in no way trying to suggest that ID cards and authenticated identities will penetrate the entire world (the researchers I speak with expect the US and Canada to be long-term holdouts), the Spanish technology is being deployed slowly in Italy, and massively exported to Latin America. It’s still a few years out, but ID cards and ‘net authentication will likely be a reality for at least some users of the ‘net in the not-so-distant future.
November 25th, 2009 at 8:58 am
@Chris:
If those go through, there will be class action lawsuits against governments for invasion of privacy, abuse of rights and powers by those with the information, and of course a lot of rebellion. The rebellion will be workarounds to the passports. Look at how hard companies like Microsoft try to protect their products. The harder they try the more eager the reverse engineers are to crack them.
Making it illegal won’t stop people from cracking it. Which shows that the People, do not agree with it.
If the passports come to pass, guaranteed there will be widespread abuse and innocent people punished. Guaranteed private information will be revealed to third parties for whatever reason. Guaranteed those deemed a security threat will be required to have these passports (ie: any Middle Eastern country). And guaranteed there will be people cracking them.
It’s a waste of time and money!
“He who sacrifices liberty for security shall have, and deserves, neither.” Benjamen Franklin.