Looking at all the ads and online stores you see today, it looks like the net was made as a sales system, says Monkey D. Luffy.
But it wasn’t.
“I think it’s also relevant to three strikes in that I don’t believe it was EVER Tim Berners-Lee’s intention that net access be put under government control, which is EXACTLY what a three strikes law does,” he says.
Sir Tim Berners-Lee is the British engineer and computer scientist, and now an MIT professor, who’s credited with inventing the World Wide Web.
There seems to be a real misunderstanding as to just what the purpose of the internet is, “usually espoused by people promoting a mandatory isp tax levy,” says Monkey, continuing >>>
The internet is NOT a giant marketing apparatus!
I’ve been getting the impression that some people(NOT the p2p crowd) seem to think the internet was created as a giant marketing tool to sell stuff. That was NOT the reason the net was created, it wasn’t it’s purpose at conception, and despite what anyone may try to claim, it’s not it’s purpose now. It’s main purpose was and is for the free dissemination of information.
The World-Wide Web (W3) was developed to be a pool of human knowledge, which would allow collaborators in remote sites to share their ideas and all aspects of a common project.” If two projects are independently created, rather than have a central figure make the changes, the two bodies of information could form into one cohesive piece of work. Wikipedia
And
In 1994, Berners-Lee founded the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) at MIT. It comprised various companies that were willing to create standards and recommendations to improve the quality of the Web. Berners-Lee made his idea available freely, with no patent and no royalties due. The World Wide Web Consortium decided that its standards should be based on royalty-free technology, so that they could easily be adopted by anyone. Wikipedia
He was also one of the pioneer voices in favor of Net Neutrality, and has expressed the view that ISPs should supply “connectivity with no strings attached,” and should neither control nor monitor customers’ browsing activities without their express consent.
Yeah, stuff is now sold in abundance over the web, but just because that is so is not a justification for a mandatory ISP tax levy just because there is music/movies/whatever on it.
My friend uses the web to promote his unified physics theory using quaternions, he’s looking for feedback and critique from physicists.
“He should pay an entertainment tax levy for this?” – asks Monkey
November 16th, 2009 at 7:49 pm
The web was designed for the exchange of information. But, I think that the genie is out of the bottle when it comes the economics of it all. Personally, I’m not in favour of any type of ‘blanket’ license; however, I am in favour for artists being paid at least something when their music is used. I certainly don’t think it needs to be a lot either. Going forward, however, since the genie is out of the bottle and you have a situation where labels are teamin up with ISPs and telecoms and where websites use media to draw traffic, sell advertising and exploit, I find it unfair and very unfortunate for our culture to ask them to simply take it on the chin.
November 16th, 2009 at 7:50 pm
‘Them’ taking it on the chin meaning (in the above comment) artists, creators, etc.
November 16th, 2009 at 9:29 pm
Now, THERE’S an argument I used to constantly get into with so many, going right back to “The Beginning”!!
All anyone needs to do to understand the principle is to ask yourself why “spam” was “wrong”, and then look at that. Either, you get it, or you don’t…
1. The Internet exists because of COOPERATING, INDEPENDENTLY-OWNED-AND-OPERATED EQUIPMENT from all over the world, and everyone cooperating PAYS for the ability to connect.
2. Even before “spam” came along, it was already in the basic TOS (terms of service) of the earliest providers that the connection was not being provided as a “commercial medium” and that any “unsolicited messages” (defined as anything coming from anyone the recipient wouldn’t reasonably expect to receive any transmission from) could result in account termination, period.
3. Spam was defined very early as “theft of resources”, as resources which “someone else” was paying for were being “stolen” by those running unauthorized commercial campaigns. (Nobody wanted it, everybody paid for it, except quite often the ones that actually sent it.)
________________________
This principle was not hard to understand.
But we knew, we lived in a world that was already completely exploited by the Great Corporate Machine, and its constant quest for “maximum marketing exposure”. Telling the Corporates the Internet wasn’t put there “for them” was like putting a biscuit on your dog’s nose and trying to get him to just ignore it.
So, spam became prevalent, thanks to the Corporate World. They hired one hack after another to devise ways to get their messages through the ISPs that would ban them, making end-user security protocols necessary. Not content with that, the Corporates continued to hire the hacks to write even more harmful code to circumvent the users’ wishes. All the time, these exploits were being “routinely” misreported by everyone as being from “isolated rogues” that were simply “glory hunting”.
All you had to do was look at the contents of the “payload ads”, that were given the power to “pop-up” unwanted, and you’d often see the stuff was from well-known companies. Companies that never answered for this, but damned-well should have!
The Corporate World had already recognized its “need” to “own” the Internet before that. After all, coverage was “global”, and the price was right! With total costs finely distributed through all the user accounts, the overhead of “doing future business” over the wire was minimal to any one individual or company. But don’t fool yourselves! They weren’t just looking at it from the “e-mail marketing” perspective…
They knew of the potential the Internet had, not only to liberate the individual, but to collect all sorts of individuals and thus “give them a voice”. In the eyes of the Corporates, this power was the single most “destructive” threat to their agenda and cannot be allowed to be fully realized! “Owning the Internet” means everything from controlling who gets to make any money with it, to controlling things like freedom of speech and dissent of the masses itself.
There’s a big problem with this whole gameplan, however…
The Internet is NOT a “commodity”, or even something corporately-tangible as a “broadcast medium”, or a “hockey team” – things that lend themselves to the idea of “central structuring and ownership”. Nope. The Internet was already “owned” the day it was formed, by the ones who connected to form it that day. And, every single day after that, it was “owned” by those who were connected at the time.
That’s how the Internet “works”. Nobody can “own” it. Not even a union of all the major providers on the globe can do this. They can kick all the users off, and what they’ll have left is, simply, NO INTERNET! The best they could hope to achieve is a very exclusive, self-consuming INTRANET composed of nothing but their “buds”.
And, they can “interfere” with users, and flex whatever muscle they might have over the users, but that can only last as long as it takes for innovators to get on without the help of the Corporate “gatekeepers”, even making their own “Internet 2″ or “Internet X”. And, we’re already at that threshold now!
November 16th, 2009 at 9:39 pm
ADDENDUM TO ABOVE:
If the provider role was actually limited to being “just a dumb pipe”, and never allowed to extend into other worlds like content distribution and network “ownership”, and never allowed to be used as a pawn for various “policing” objectives, or third-party data-mining efforts, can you imagine how much less I would have had to type in the first comment??!
November 17th, 2009 at 12:25 am
@Indianna Gregg
Governments and large corporations HATE the free, unrestricted internet and have used every excuse in the book to try to tie it down with restrictions. “Oh, those horrid pedophiles are online, we need to spy on everyone online to catch them”, “That evil Craigslist is advertising HOOKERS online, we need to STOP that”, “OMG there’s PORNO inline, we need to regulate the net to ban it”, “Ship ahoy, it’s the PIRATE BAY, oh shit we REALLY gotta regulate the net now”!!!!!
To all this I say a resounding NOOOOOOOOO!!! There was a recent post about pols in the U.S. literally reciting line by line in their speeches talking points given to them by a medical lobby group. I want these corrupt, money grubbing assholes “regulating” the net? No thanks. If someones doing something really vile it’s not like they can’t be found and busted, they have some show on tv where they bust pedophiles on it every week. I think a path to “fairness” has a lot more to do with what Billy has been talking about, coming to agreement on copyright issues as applying corporations, NOT non profiteering individuals. You don’t need any kind of internet regulation to squeeze Clearchannel.
November 17th, 2009 at 12:31 am
@Indiana:
“The web was designed for the exchange of information. But, I think that the genie is out of the bottle when it comes [to] the economics of it all.”
What economics?!?
This page is basically discussing the reasons why the Internet is simply not a “sales vehicle”. There are no economics to this topic.
But I would encourage you to absorb the main post, and stuff like in Comment #3, as you (and a few other artists) could really use a better understanding of how the Internet really works.
I say this most sincerely, and not out of some form of malice. Some of the stalemates I see happening to different discussions here always seem to result from either:
1) misguided conceptions from the fans about artists, or
2) misguided conceptions from the artists about how the Internet works.
Considering we haven’t got a wealth of artists here to correct us on #1, I think we’re doing our best to re-educate ourselves on the realities of being the artist (or at least throw away what we “thought” we knew).
But, I see no movement on #2 from artists, nor do I see any artists even trying to absorb its importance, but they’re the ones coming in right after the “handshake”, with proposals for solutions, most of them based on false or mistaken notions of how the WWWeb works.
In order to hypothesize about solutions involving the Internet, and know why they’re either “unworkable” or “promising”, you must at least understand, yourselves, what the Internet really is (and isn’t!).
You wouldn’t ask somebody who was tone-deaf to help you write even one track. It wouldn’t be fair to yourself. Why would you try to design your next business model without knowing what makes the “theory” sound?!
November 17th, 2009 at 5:55 am
The problem is, a lot of things don’t turn out how you plan. The use of the internet has evolved from it’s point of conception and the way it has used has changed. Same thing happens with babies. We all want our babies to grow up and be happy. However, we can’t control their personality or their actions. Things don’t always work out according to plan. Some babies end up being serial killers. What can we do? Try to erase that gene? Send up a prayer? Put them in prison? Execute? But, they are a product of ourselves and maybe we don’t like what they represent, but.. well, difficult.
The cat’s out of the bag. Many people make their livings from the internet. They are not all ‘corporate’. Some of them are stay-home parents, or guys who don’t want to work for their boss anymore and set up a niche service that people might like, etc. etc. Nothing that anyone does is going to change the fact that use of the internet is part of our global economy.
How the web works isn’t as important as how it is used and what it is used for. Nor was TV, radio, letters in the post, public libraries, social services, etc. etc. etc. Everyone pays for all of those things. Libraries AREN’t ‘free’. The librarians don’t live on fresh air. The books don’t magically arrive in the fairy dust, and guess what, we all pay an indirect tax which pays for their overheads. Some of you never use the library. Some people don’t every set foot in a museum. In fact, some people over here in the UK never ever go to the doctor or use the NHS.
If you want to use the library, you have to get to it. You pay for a train or bus ticket and depending upon how fast you want to get there. But, the library you are going to is indeed paid for and subsidized by ‘everyone’, the public.
November 17th, 2009 at 9:53 am
@ Monkey
“I think a path to ‘fairness’ has a lot more to do with what Billy has been talking about, coming to agreement on copyright issues as applying corporations, NOT non profiteering individuals. You don’t need any kind of internet regulation to squeeze Clearchannel.”
Hear hear. And refusing to back the Three Strikes scam.
Cheers!
November 17th, 2009 at 10:02 am
First things first here, I’m not trying to preach for any kind of blanket levy. I’m aware that it’s on the cards and threw something out to you for something that would be the ‘opposite’ of a blanket. Likewise, I’ve always been against the Hadopi idea and the 3 strikes scenarios. It’s not like I’m ‘pushing’, it’s more like ‘pulling’ information out of you. I might say something outrageous just to see the reaction. Who knows, that’s what artists do best. I can write you 20 or 30 different proposals based upon various ideas. Again, this is something that artists and creative people like to do. Just because somebody puts something forward doesn’t mean their already lobbying to enforce it. If that were the case, I wouldn’t have presented it here or asked for a reaction
I wouldn’t be asking you to change my mind. That’s simply how creative people work on things (IMO).
Example: artist 1: What do you think about this A major chord here? artist 2: nah, maybe adding in the minor would sound cooler for that bit of the tune. artist 1: ok, let’s give it a try.
Look, on an individual level, our business model is pretty simple, Kerchoonz allows artists to upload their music themselves (no middle man distributor), They can set the price for their music (no general price fixing), We provide various web tools that makes it easy for them to get their music in front of fans both on Kerchoonz and other sites. Musician’s put their paypal address into the system and set the price for their tunes. Fans can buy tunes directly from the artists. When you listen to their music via streaming, the artists also get paid from the ad revenue generated. (That’s the model we have been working on for the past couple of years in beta.) We also have a system for artists to sell their gear, merch, tickets, etc directly to their fans. (And even fans can sell stuff, used, new, whatever). Same will go for video and independent films and independent book authors with eBooks eventually. But, we know that we are only one site and there are so few sites that actually want to help indie artists, it’s like swimming in the middle of the pacific.
–there’s a third side too though:
3) misguided conceptions about how the internet has expanded and why. The economics and government agenda behind it. What the internet is used for.
Before we talk about whether artists know about how the internet works, some may know, others may not. But, let’s look at the infrastructure alone anyway. What we all pay to our ISPs is nothing compared to what it costs to construct and operate the infrastructure. There is a new tax that government would like to introduce for expansion as well. It’s major corporations and governments who pay the operation costs for commercial internet providers. There’s quite a bit of government contracting going on and your monthly broadband fees only represent a fraction compared to those costs due to this expansion. Everything about the networks is, to some extent, commercial. Nothing is ‘free’. Nothing is actually “neutral”. There is a lot of ‘FUD’ out there about what Net Neutrality actually means. Ask any 20 politicians and you’ll probably get 20 extraneous answers. The reality is nothing is free from the moment you turn on your PC right down to the fibre optic cables, to the ‘free’ access to google (a gazillion dollar search engine. Do you really think it’s free for you to access information on Google? Google doesn’t think so, and they know that you pay for it indirectly.) And although some of the definitions and ideas of what ‘net neutrality’ means vary from one end of the string to the other, the idea of any kind of network neutrality disappeared the minute your government helped subsidize the expansion of the internet. And everything that we access ‘free’ via the net actually isn’t ‘free’. Plus with VoIP and live broadcasting of tv signals and the fusion of television with internet apps, net neutrality would eventually need to extend to TV and radio.
“Net Neutrality is a ’slogan’.”– Bob Khan (another ‘Father of the Internet’) http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/01/18/kahn_net_neutrality_warning/
I also think that most of the commenters on here come from a perspective of p2p alone. Not all fans of music use p2p. In fact, many fans use Murdoch’s myspace or yahoo, Last.fm, Youtube, and loads of other ’services’ and social networking portals to ‘try before they buy’. I’m around kids all the time, for example, (because I have three of them.) They use bebo, myspace, spotify and a host of other media streaming and download services. Myspace was built on the backs of independent artists. Myspace sold cpm’s through the roof with all this ‘free’ media. So, myspace turns it’s back on the thousands upon thousands of independent artists due to the threat of a hefty lawsuit, in a deal with the majors via ‘myspace music’ and what of the independents? http://www.thedailyswarm.com/headlines/indie-labels-threaten-myspace-music-antitrust-lawsuit/ One of the reasons we started working on Kerchoonz was because indie artists were getting dropped like flies. Distribution meant that your music had the same prices as major music did (like iTunes, etc.) and artists weren’t left with much choice about what their prices would be.
November 17th, 2009 at 10:04 am
Would anyone want to see their children grow up and be chained to a dog collar wearing a gimp suit, with a pimp offering discount rates holding the leash? That’s the Internet under government/corporate control.
November 17th, 2009 at 10:10 am
@Indianna,
Same thing happens with babies. We all want our babies to grow up and be happy. However, we can’t control their personality or their actions. Things don’t always work out according to plan. Some babies end up being serial killers. What can we do?
This is by far the worst and most inaccurate analogy you have used to describe, even an aspect of change, the Internet.
People whom are so disturbed they become serial killers were a) mentally and physically abused by their parents or b) suffer from psychological problems due to biochemical imbalance. Those are noticeable to the non-ignorant parent.
The Internet is NOT a pure commercial medium. You can site any usage stats and make assumptions but that is NOT what it is! The Internet is not a television or commercial radio. You can claim “it has advertising and entertainment” therefore it must be a TV or radio, but it is NOT. The Internet is still free.
You can do anything you like on it, it’s up to YOU, not someone who controls it.
How the web works IS important! While you don’t need to understand what SYN/ACK is, you do need to understand how it works…
You have computers sharing information, the WWW simply makes it possible to see those computers because they are on the network, the massive network known as the WWW.
It is known as the Information Super Highway, not “the media centre to be exploited, taxed, levied.”
As an analogy, is your computer a Net surfer? Is it a communications device? That’s what you use it for mostly right? Or is it a flexible machine that does what you tell it to, be it develop programs, design graphics, create documents for people to follow, create music, record/mix music, edit movies, watch movies, or simply provide white noise while you sleep? None of those things “requires” the WWW! You want to transfer something from your computer to another, you connect to a network (aka: copy from one computer to another — yes viewing this site is actually copying that info from the hosting server to your computer) or sneakernet (portable HDD’s or USB flash drive) or CD or DVD etc..
The point is, you must not take something out of it’s context purely by it’s common use, unless it was intentionally designed that way, such as a hammer is for hammering which is also the common use.
The web is simply a network and all it does is ALLOW packets to be copied from one computer to another, that’s it! It’s not oversimplified either. Your SYN goes out and the ACK comes back. The route it takes depends on the load of the routers in place, which allow you to connect, if the destination is even on the network, and perform a handshake.
So you do need to understand how the internet works before you try to classify it as something it is not.
It’s like playing guitar, you need to understand that in order to make sound, you have to make the strings vibrate, pluck them. If you don’t get that basic principle, you can’t really play guitar now can you? 1″hey it don’t work” 2″that’s because you’re muting the strings” 1″i’m what?” 2″do you even know how this works?” 1″no” 2″it shows. give me that back.”
November 17th, 2009 at 11:07 am
” How the web works isn’t as important as how it is used and what it is used for. ”
Yes it IS important. It’s a dumb pipe and needs to stay that way. How it is used is the choice of the user. If site A plays and indiana gregg song as a ‘theme’ . you have legitimate reason to look into chaging the site. Because a variety of sites use media for different does not mean that the entirety of the internet ‘owes’ you. The owners of sites that DIRECTLY use your media might ( I stress ‘might’ because there ARE fair use issues to be considered ).I’m hearing ’since a lot of sites use media, ALL of the internet needs to pay us’. Not true. That’s why there is a legal chain of events already in place to go through if you believe a site owes you money. Use the tools already in place, but use them right and consider fair use. That’s the ‘right’ way. There is no ‘Cat out of the bag’. The internet is the same, the USERS have changed. Charge them.
November 17th, 2009 at 1:21 pm
@Indiana:
Economics? How about these economics: thanks to computers and the internet, we are sitting on a worldwide distribution system with zero marginal cost. Instead of using something so incredible to reach out, you’re trying to make sure you get a check every time music is “used.”
I’m sure General Motors wishes they got paid every time somebody used one of their “products.” Yet such a scheme is impossible to construct or enforce and is entirely unnecessary. Use the ubiquitous to sell the scarce.
November 17th, 2009 at 1:58 pm
@Indianna Gregg
Net neutrality IS important. You are correct in stating that google isn’t free, but what a lot of the tiered internet advocates either don’t know, or don’t want you to know is that google is ALREADY paying a huge amount of money for it’s web site to remain online. The way the current system works is you pay for bandwidth use, NOT what you are serving off your web site. Since google’s popularity causes it to use an enormous amount of bandwidth, they are paying a huge sum of money to remain online. What makes this system fair is everybody gets the same speed, so a rinky dink personal web site gets served up as fast as google’s site. Same for your site,Kerchoonz. What the telcoms want to do is charge extra for “premium” service, which will be the same speed EVERYONE now gets. If you can’t afford to pay that you get regulated to the bottom tier, which could mean your site is served up at dsl or even dialup speeds. Indy, if you couldn’t afford the high tier premium that means some of the features your site has would become unusable.
From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiered_Internet
November 17th, 2009 at 2:19 pm
“3) misguided conceptions about how the internet has expanded and why. The economics and government agenda behind it. What the internet is used for.”
This, to anyone else who simply knows better, is just a classic illustration of #2 (misguided conceptions from the artists about how the Internet works). At this point, I’m very tempted to just give up appealing to you to absorb the reality. It’s not that I think you CAN’T grasp it – it just appears more likely you have some incentive NOT TO.
You automatically and arbitrarily dismiss what an internet IS, in favour of some ficticious “functional usage” model you seem to WANT it to have. That way, you can “define” it as though it were some TV-style broadcast network, filled with these “transmissions” that computers simply “receive signal” from when they connect.
This concept is not only ignorant, but ironic in one sense…
Right now, our CRTC is having hearings about a feud started between “cable” providers and the “over-the-air” television networks who are now demanding a cut of Cable’s profits to compensate for “using their signals”. Even though this doesn’t involve the Internet, the argument is very similar to that of some artists wanting to “tax the internet” or “license those that profit from use of music over the internet”.
And, even though the CRTC hearing is about 2 bona fide forms of actual television transmission, the argument is not going over very well at all with the CRTC.
For once, something very “remarkable” came from the mouth of the CRTC Chairman, which was something like, “The way I see it, the only way either side will allow us to solve the problem is to take more money from the pockets of consumers! Are you telling me that, with all the technological advancements and all the years you have been working TOGETHER and DEPENDING ON EACH OTHER, this is what it all comes down to??”
Food for thought.
November 17th, 2009 at 6:15 pm
look, it’s obvious that the internet isn’t a signal/receiver scenario, every cat, man and dog knows that. However, it IS being used in a similar way. For consumers, live video streaming whether it’s from the BBC iPlayer or via satellite isn’t much of an issue for them. Same with live internet radio, etc.) Over-the-air verses over-the-network doesn’t matter very much to the general consumer. They see it in the same light.
@monkey Likewise we know that all search engines, websites, social networks, etc have costs and overheads. Of course Google has big overheads, it’s a massive company.
General Motors actually does get paid every time someone uses their products. You absorb the cost up front (it’s in the price tag).
The ISP pipe is no longer a ‘dumb pipe’ because that pipe went into business with both the government and major corporations (and now, that pipe is also in bed with the labels, for example). Sorry, but the companies behind the dumb pipes have let the genie out of the bottle on that one.
@Monkey, I totally agree with you that net neutrality is important and ISPs should provide the same service to everyone. But, the reality is that ISPs AREN’t just a pipe with no strings attached. What they ’should be’ and what they ‘actually ARE being’ are two different things entirely. ISPs are effectively cooperating with censorious governments in a mission to keep their citizens in the dark. The very reason why they throttle various ’services’. With P2p, for example, they find it ‘justified’ but not necessarily for the reasons you might think. They do it because it’s in their interest due to their involvement with certain government and corporate interests who are now involved with the ‘dumb pipe’ companies.
@ everyone By all means, I haven’t rejected P2p as part of our business model for Kerchoonz; like I said, we looked into it and entered into an NDA with Bittorrent at one point, it’s just that until there is some form of licensing or legislation for it, it’s nearly impossible to do.
@robert. the serial killer babies wasn’t about the internet, it was about how some things don’t work out as they were originally planned. Again, Einstein wasn’t aiming for the A-bomb. I think most people understand how the internet functions. But, absolutely nothing about it is free. From electricity, to the connecting cables, to the cost of pc’s, servers, super computers etc. etc. Nothing is ‘free’.
Yes,that’s often what it comes down to. Look at the new Cray Super computer. Who do you think will pay the $7 million that it will cost to run it (if it were ran continuously over a years time). Like, how many megawatts would that be? And who’s laughing? We pay for everything whether or not you call us the ‘consumer’ or the ‘tax payer’. The internet is most assuredly not FREE. It’s like people who say things like “the highways are free?” Umm. Find me a country that doesn’t pass the cost of a national highway system over to the public?
However, in the case of local TV and the position of the CRTC, it’s a bit different because it’s about ‘culture’. Local TV disapearing would be a ‘cultural’ loss. A loss to local communities who should have access to local reporting, etc. It is similar in a way to the idea of an ISP and website levy because the public is already paying for the access to music in their subscriptions.
The CRTC and your federal government should protect consumers by regulating the cost of basic services. Cable companies (in my opinon) shouldn’t pass the buck onto the consumer because they were offering the local TV as part of their ‘package’. Seems logical that local TV would be supported by the public.
November 18th, 2009 at 6:41 am
@Indianna,
I know your serial killers was about things not turning out as planned, however I explained the flaw in that argument already. Serial killers do not result from something unplanned, they are the result of negligent parents. When you are in denial of instability in your child, that’s negligence.
I never said the costs to purchase or power the networking devices were free, those are capital costs,aka one time costs. The point is that the ACCESS to information has a fee, your ISP monthly bill, and once connected it is up to YOU, no influence! That’s how it is. So your CHOICE is FREE!
No offense but you are using a strawman fallacy with the power comments. You can’t say “it’s not free because it has capital costs and operational costs therefor a levy is required.”
Wrong! The ISP’s charge for broadband access, that covers power and equipment. People purchase a computer, pay their ISP bill, and host sites, those costs have nothing to do with monetizing the internet. Forget whatever Murdoch says will happen, he’d charge for breathing, sleeping, eating (not food, the actual act of eating) if he could!
People DO realize that highways are free to use, meaning no additional fees above capital costs and regular maintenance. People also realize their tax dollars fund it.
Right now, your taxes do not fund the internet. Your ISP bandwidth ACCESS costs do. For some people to HOST their OWN site, such as a2f2a.com, it costs money because of bandwidth. People may choose to use advertising to pay for the bandwidth costs.
Point being you still need to understand how the internet works before you can support any kind of tax or levy or license or 3strikes. We are well aware of what the corporations would like. The governments would prefer to NOT do anything but collect money in the form of taxes. They don’t care! Defense departments, police departments, they care, but the government does not. They do what they are told with $$ and voted to.
Please stop using the strawman fallacy when you provide an argument to support your conclusion. We spend more time saying “no you don’t have this right” instead of discussing ideas for how to move forward!
And just because some rich dude wants 3 strikes it doesn’t mean it will happen.
November 18th, 2009 at 9:38 am
@Robert
Thank you, I thought I had pointed out that the internet IS currently paid for. If you host a web site that cost depends on how much traffic the site gets. For low traffic sites there is “free” hosting, paid for by advertising or a bonus provided by an isp. If a site gets popular and traffic increases(and correspondingly bandwidth use rises) the price goes up, more traffic/bandwidth use = higher cost. Everybody wishing to access the web pays as well, and as Robert pointed out the price of that too is assessed by bandwidth. There is an enormous amount of money being made off this, so when the telcoms tell you they need a tiered system they are full of shit. As I have already stated, such a system would cause a HORRIBLE degradation of net user experience, as even if you have broadband service you will get crap speeds from web sites who’s owners can’t afford to pay extra for the “higher tier”.
November 18th, 2009 at 9:41 am
” General Motors actually does get paid every time someone uses their products. You absorb the cost up front (it’s in the price tag). ”
No, I don’t send a check to GM every time I drive to Wal-Mart.
If we want to be really picky about this analogy, Label artists that got advances were already paid in full, like GM got paid in full for the car ;P
‘Analogies’ don’t fit. You can’t fit the square peg into the round hole no unless you use a hammer. You won’t USE a hammer unless you’ve convinced yourself the peg is square, regardless of the reality. Put the hammer away.
November 18th, 2009 at 9:56 am
” First things first here, I’m not trying to preach for any kind of blanket levy. ”
No, you’re right. You’re pushing for a blanket license which is pretty much the same thing with a different name. You advertise it in 2 different posts one of them here …
http://a2f2a.com/2009/10/29/%E2%80%98artists-want-to-be-heard%E2%80%99/#comments
Post number 5 directs us to this link ..
http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/compulsary_worldwide_digital_mus/index.html
Which is a petition asking for yet another black box scheme, but for the internet.
November 18th, 2009 at 10:00 am
That is entirely false. The price is set as a one-time fee that covers manufacturing costs and some profit. I pay the same amount whether I keep the car for two years or twenty, use it to take my wife on a date or use it to transport goods as part of my business.
Unlike General Motors, though, an artist has the ability to profit from connecting with fans and giving them reasons to buy scarce things. Not only can you get paid (once) to create and release new things, but the proliferation of old work creates a group of people interested in exchanging money for actual scarce items that connect them to you.
People get paid for doing work. They don’t work once and then expect to get paid again and again for the rest of their (and their grandchildren’s) lives.
November 18th, 2009 at 1:39 pm
Actually, the artist is like General motors, who has the ability to sell you used parts for your car after it’s warranty is run out and after you have taken that upfront one time gamble to buy that car or 5 year lease on that vehicle, for example. Or in the case that you actually do outlive the re-use period of that vehicle to say 20 years (probably after a good bit of repair, or, in the case that the vehicle spent a lot of time in your garage-in which case, you would have not ‘used’ it., etc.), just like general motors has every potential to ‘upsell’ to their clients, the artists also has the potential to do gigs and sell ’scarce’ items. But, that’s something the artist has always had anyway and so has GM.
I completely understand why you and a lot of other people see this as a valid point but, there is another side to this argument about physical versus digital and how it applies to ‘content’ or ‘media’. I can see why people use this argument because on the surface it looks like that is what’s happening (and it is to some extent due to the extension of copyright, which, I agree, should be limited).
The difference is that with most ‘products’ the cost is absorbed up front. If you take ‘hoover’ for example. When you buy a ‘hoover’ washing machine, they have tested their machine and they know approximately how many times that machine will be used before there is some sort of technical failure. Because they have invested further into the quality assurance of their brand, you pay more for their machine than other machines on the market. There is a use-to-value ratio. You take the risk and absorb all that use in one payment. People who don’t want to take that risk will perhaps go to the laundry mat and pay to use the machine every time they need to wash their clothes. Another example is buying a house versus renting. Either you absorb the the cost up front to use the house or you rent or borrow that use over time.
However, I will completely agree with you if you were to say “Yes, but, there is a lifespan to my car and a lifespan to my washing machine”. There I agree entirely that there should be a definite time limit put on copyright and at that point, the music should enter into the public domain or in the case of use via internet that perhaps copyright wouldn’t need to exist (as long as either the upfront cost is met or unless it’s use is compensated).
If you believe that perhaps the cost should be absorbed through raising the price of the tickets to live shows? That isn’t perhaps very fair because perhaps the music was used by people who didn’t or couldn’t attend the live show and the buck was passed on to only a select set of individuals who went to the live show.
Or perhaps the music was produced by a 60-piece symphony orchestra. The cost of touring such an orchestra being unduly expensive which means that often the price of the tickets are subsidized by governments. The recording of which is likewise pricey involving a bigger space, a lot of mics, etc. etc.
Both the artists and general motors have (and always have had) the ability to profit from connecting with their fans (or in the case of GM, their ‘customers’). In the case of General Motors, the product is a car. In the case of a musician, orchestra, or individual artist, the product is the music.
If we were to apply all this to film or books, where would you see their potential for other income streams when their value is reduced due to the ability to copy without any limit. Amazon and Sony have introduced the Kindle, you can read books on your iPhone. eBooks may one day replace paper books. In the case with books, is the author-to-fan ratio as easy to identify? I don’t know.
November 18th, 2009 at 2:20 pm
@Dreddnik “The preceding statements are an opinion, not necessarily shared by all, relayed for informational purposes and is not to be taken as an order, or a definitive course of action.”
I hope that the above statement might apply to everyone who is taking part in this discussion
Everybody here is expressing various ideas. 
November 18th, 2009 at 9:03 pm
” If you can’t afford to pay that you get regulated to the bottom tier, which could mean your site is served up at dsl or even dialup speeds. Indy, if you couldn’t afford the high tier premium that means some of the features your site has would become unusable. ”
Of course, this isn’t a problem if one happens to be a label artists, is it ? That’s another part of the problem. In spite of what some might say, the playing field IS level NOW. Levies, tiered internet,those things pushes the advantage right back to the labels, and LABEL artists. Status quo maintained.
@Indiana
” I hope that the above statement might apply to everyone who is taking part in this discussion Everybody here is expressing various ideas. ”
Some of us are, at any rate.
The preceding statements are an opinion, not necessarily shared by all, relayed for informational purposes and is not to be taken as an order, or a definitive course of action
November 20th, 2009 at 8:51 am
Indiana,
If people want to hear more recordings, they will pay you make them. If people want to hear you perform, they will pay to go to your shows. It actually is that simple. By not attempting to artificially restrict the ability, desire, and right of people to share with each other, you only broaden your audience. Or, you can keep thinking in terms of your 20th century business model and trying to find an exact analog today. In one scenario, you successfully adapt to a changing world. In another, you become an artifact of a legacy business.
November 20th, 2009 at 12:12 pm
Am I the only one who realizes that the ISPs operational costs are largely funded by government and that we, the tax payers, pay for this as well as paying for broadband subscriptions? Do you people realise that now, with this ridiculous 3-strikes stuff, you will now also be funding the 1million/day that it will cost to enforce it whether you decide to ‘choose’ dark nets or not? And all in the name of p2p? P2p is their ‘excuse’ to bring on legislation (legislation that has a few other wormholes attached to the price tag). So, instead of finding a solution to what is really a much huger problem than anything to do with music, the very predictable outcome is happening.
November 20th, 2009 at 1:30 pm
“BT claims that forcing ISPs to police piracy could cost the industry £1m a day” £365 milion/ year, and you guys are worried about ‘black boxes’? How much of that money that you will now be paying the government will ever trickle down to creative people? It’s absolutely insane.
November 20th, 2009 at 3:11 pm
@Indiana
I think you may be confusing ISP’s with ICANN. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ICANN
Even ICANN charges fees and is a non profit corporation, I don’t know if they receive any additional funding from the government. What ISPs are you referring to that are funded by the government? Comcast? Verizon? I very much doubt they are receiving any direct funding. Believe me even if the mainstream media missed that the net community would not, that would be all over the blogosphere. Please provide a reference to where you heard the U.S. government is funding Comcast, Verizon, and other ISPs.
November 20th, 2009 at 4:42 pm
There are quite a few ‘broadband stimulus programs’. In the US it’s around $7.2billion. The UK has also provided a series of broadband subsidies. This, like with the banks, subsidizes operational costs, although, part of it (75%) is meant to be for building broadband in rural areas. Here, they are talking about introducing a broadband tax to extend the network to rural areas. And the other 25%? I don’t live in the US, but, the big one was passed recently under the US stimulus package. If you do a search on broadband subsidies or maybe even broadband stimulus projects or packages, you’ll see the most recent allocations. I think the most recent one in the US was introduced in early 2009.
November 20th, 2009 at 4:45 pm
@Monkey
“Please provide a reference to where you heard the U.S. government is funding Comcast, Verizon, and other ISPs. ”
Shame on you. Asking for references is ‘hostile’
Kidding aside, I’d love to know the source of Indiana’s information.
November 20th, 2009 at 5:26 pm
Additionally, p2p isn’t going to stop. You continue to act as if there is some kind of “trump card” that comes in to play if the net doesn’t reconfigure itself to support your legacy business model. That is not the case. Every crusade against modern p2p from Napster on down has only created better technologies that are more difficult to track and shut down.
For once, the public has taken power back from the hands of corporations and governments and it’s not going to hand it back so you can continue making money the way you did ten years ago. Adapting is the way to move forward – why must you fight so strongly against it?
November 21st, 2009 at 8:36 am
@Indianna,
I think you’re misunderstanding the article
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-10165726-38.html
Subsidizing is “we’re broke and we can’t compete, government help us out” like wheat subsides in the Prairie provinces.
This stimulus package is “hey, most people don’t even have the internet, here’s some cash to get you off your butt and get almost everyone connected”
There’s a huge difference between companies needing subsides like the Banks and ISP’s who are simply not investing their own profits into infrastructure at a desired rate. Instead, like Bell and Rogers, they invest in DPI to throttle p2p/torrent/streaming to provide their two-tier network, to provide access to their preferred (ISP paid by content creator) content and 26kps dial-up speed anyone else.
November 21st, 2009 at 9:25 am
@Monkey
See, no reference.
Indiana has never provided a single direct reference for anything she has claimed. I’ve asked nicely, I’ve pushed, no sources ever provided. Maybe this time will be different.
@Indiana
Sure I can search.
Link me to at least ONE of the references YOU read.
What does this have to do with the fact that a levy, tax, or whatever you want to call it today is the wrong way to go ?
That’s a Red Herring.
November 21st, 2009 at 9:50 am
The thing that bothers me about what is going on here is that ACTA and 3-strikes are actually not really about ‘music’. They are actually about policing the internet in the future and that is what disturbs me most. A lot of you are saying ‘oh, it doesn’t matter about 3-strikes, we can still share via darknets and VPN’s until it blows over”. That worries me. Not because people plan to continue ’sharing’, that’s miniscule and doesn’t matter. What worries me is that people don’t seem to want to grasp what’s at stake if we allow legislation like 3-strikes to take place.
@monkey and @SteelWolf Here is one link about the ISP subsidy payday. (For example) off of the $7.2billion stimulus package that was introduced in your country earlier this year.
it’s called “Broadband USA”: http://broadbandusa.sc.egov.usda.gov/
If you look at this, you will soon realise the ’scale’:
look up the: American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009
Broadband Initiative
In the first round, over 2200 applicants looking for $28billion.
Creating jobs is a good thing, however, that falls under ‘operational costs’ of the ISPs. Government is most certainly heavily involved. It’s been speculated that the bigger ISPs (Comcast, Verizon) may not apply directly due to the perpetuity of the involvement that the act implies. However, you might look to see if they have ‘daughter’ companies involved once the grants are awarded next month.
November 21st, 2009 at 11:51 am
” A lot of you are saying ‘oh, it doesn’t matter about 3-strikes, we can still share via darknets and VPN’s until it blows over”. That worries me. Not because people plan to continue ’sharing’, that’s miniscule and doesn’t matter. What worries me is that people don’t seem to want to grasp what’s at stake if we allow legislation like 3-strikes to take place. ”
Yes, we do.
We grasped it years ago when the Labels first began suing using their RIAA lapdogs. We’ve written to lawmakers, actually anyone we could who we thought might listen without any responses. We’ve known all along that it’s about control and not music OR artists. We grok, we fight. We have no cash so we’re mooted. Since it’s already been indicated that we’re going to ‘get it’, like it or not, we can only do what we can. Utilize the huge leap in privacy technology that these moves will create. Meanwhile, the ones who the labels MIGHT listen to, continue to perpetuate myths ( we all just want stuff for free, The internet is a media system, we’re thieves ..etc.. ) instead of standing up to the labels and saying .. ‘NO .. not in our name’. You push for the very things that strengthen the control that’s already oppressive. If more of you stated PUBLICLY ..
” Not because people plan to continue ’sharing’, that’s miniscule and doesn’t matter. ” ie. that sharing DOESN’T MATTER ( you know it, you admit it ) .. then more people than just the internet population would understand whats going on, and pressure against these measure would increase. As it is now, the only ones that speak openly publicly are people like Lars and Lily who have the completely wrong idea that Sharing equals lost sales, and THAT’S the only face allowed to be shown to the general public.
When given no other choice, we’ll have to fight with the only weapons we have left to us .. technology. A levy or tax will moot us further.
November 21st, 2009 at 2:39 pm
@Indiana,
EVERYONE from the p2p side is against three strikes, I didn’t mean to leave you with an impression that was not opposed. The only doubt I have as far as that goes is about the artists, specifically FAC’s Sept 25th air statement supporting three strikes. The media certainly will have no problem quoting that over and over again as they shill for the RIAA attempting to ramrod a three strikes law through. The darknet comments don’t imply that the p2p community is blase about three strikes, rather a declaration that should that be rammed down our throats the game will be far from over.
You don’t want to get me going on the stimulus scam, the scope of that goes way beyond just ISPs. My commentary on that would turn into a manifesto of rage.
November 21st, 2009 at 4:35 pm
” You don’t want to get me going on the stimulus scam, the scope of that goes way beyond just ISPs. My commentary on that would turn into a manifesto of rage. ”
@ monkey
Seconded.
@ Indiana
Besides, as I pointed out, that has nothing to do with the issue at hand. It DOES serve as an emotionally heated subject that is capable of distracting some away from discussing the many wrong things about a levy. Properly used, that topic cold promote knee jerk reactions that prevent a useful discussion of the levy, 3 strikes and why they are wrong and most importantly, why you think a levy of any kind is a good idea, Indiana.
As I said, A Red Herring.
November 21st, 2009 at 5:20 pm
This is actually what Indiana thinks of us, Monkey.
From this P2Pnet article ..
http://www.p2pnet.net/story/30989
She’s only one of other artists that seem to feel that all we are is a bunch of pimply nerds that don’t actually DO anything but sit in the basement typing comments. I guarantee, 80% of the hardcore posters at p2pnet do EVERYTHING she suggests we do, and contact everyone we can. It does’t seem to register that since we don’t have cash or a ‘big name’ we just might not be listened to. It’s beginning to seem a little condescending, like we’re just a bunch of unschooled unmotivated twits, unwilling to stick our necks out.
November 21st, 2009 at 8:54 pm
On top of all of that, her predictions about “Internet Police,” “ID cards,” and “passports” are bunk. If things like this were even being proposed we would be hearing about it – that is, when we tear ourselves away from writing comments and playing Xbox 360.
I just love the deprecating remarks. I could go on and on about what I think of people trying to use the law to prop up a dead business model but I like to think that our “side” tries to keep things civil.
November 21st, 2009 at 9:00 pm
@Dreddsnik
I think she underestimates just how weasely politicians are. As you said the p2p crowd for the most part has no cash or a big name. When it comes to net rights, in the U.S. there doesn’t seem to be much of a difference in parties. Bush put a guy from Gator, a spyware company to the Homeland security advisory committee. http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/02/24/0133212
Now we have Obama who is hiring RIAA flacks for government positions.
The people who DO get listened to are famous artists. I’m not saying the politicians are at their beck and call, but if they are famous the news media is. If enough artists said in interviews “we don’t support suing our fans” and “we don’t support three strikes laws” that would at LEAST undercut the RIAA’s “we are doing this for the musicians” argument.
November 22nd, 2009 at 9:05 am
@SteelWolf ” I just love the deprecating remarks. I could go on and on about what I think of people trying to use the law to prop up a dead business model but I like to think that our “side” tries to keep things civil. ”
I’m glad I’m not the only one who noticed that. The only real namecalling has come from the artist side and I’M the one who is considered ‘hostile’. I have no doubt that Lily Allen got slapped around on her blog but this makes me wonder just how bad it REALLY got, and how much was her own fault. Since that blog was pulled we’ll never really know and just have to take the artist’ ‘word’ for it. The posts on THIS blog, however won’t vanish so quickly into the aether
November 22nd, 2009 at 10:33 am
@Dreddsnik Sharing on darknets would be considered miniscule and put p2p in a marginal position through 3-strikes. p2p would begin to appear to be less popular. That’s exactly where they would be happy putting you. Rather than trying to drive away a technology, it would be better to try to encourage it and create some type of ‘library’ system. You mentioned that you use the library quite often. But, you also pay for the library. You don’t really notice paying for it, but, you do. Everyone does whether they use it or not.
@monkey maybe it’s time you write that ISP manifesto of rage.
November 22nd, 2009 at 11:51 am
@robert
the entire US stimulus package is about encouraging declining markets. The Broadband subsidy is only 75% for extending networks to rural areas. The other 25% will cover operational costs.
Nonetheless, a ’subsidy’ isn’t a ‘we’re broke, please help our company’. That is a ‘bail out’.
November 22nd, 2009 at 12:03 pm
I’m sorry that none of you have been reading about ‘internet passports’. It’s an issue with security, governments, banks, and the Interpol and has been talked about over the past years.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/10/16/kaspersky_rebukes_net_anonymity/
It’s not only Kaspersky who knows about this. Whether you are in denial or not, 3-strikes is a first initiating step towards this agenda. But, you know, don’t take my word for it.
November 22nd, 2009 at 1:28 pm
Yup. 3 strikes is the thin end of a huge wedge that’ll lead to many other attacks, and not only from the entertainment industry.
Cheers!
November 22nd, 2009 at 1:52 pm
” I’m sorry that none of you have been reading about ‘internet passports’. It’s an issue with security, governments, banks, and the Interpol and has been talked about over the past years. ”
Another assumption.
What makes you think we haven’t ?
Sorry, was on my Xbox again.
throwing out all these distractions is a good way to divert attention from the other things you refuse to address.
November 22nd, 2009 at 5:58 pm
@ Dreddsnik “What Makes you Think We Haven’t” well, basically Steelwolf’s comment above actually ‘assumes’ you haven’t. He says: “On top of all of that, her predictions about “Internet Police,” “ID cards,” and “passports” are bunk. If things like this were even being proposed we would be hearing about it”
I’ve refused to ‘address’ things? heh? Now, didn’t you say that you prefer to use the library?
November 22nd, 2009 at 7:11 pm
” You mentioned that you use the library quite often. But, you also pay for the library. You don’t really notice paying for it, but, you do. Everyone does whether they use it or not. ”
Did you read my other post ?
In it I mentioned that I am aware of that fact.
What matters more is how much the labels get out of my library visit. It’s miniscule compared to what they would get from Itunes or a direct purchase. As I mentioned in my OTHER post ( you might want to read it ), if the library purchases 10 copies of your CD, and I can convince 100 people to check it out rather than buy it, what do the labels actually get ? How much is left for you ? Considerably less that If those 100 purchased through traditional channels. The boycott is maintained and nearly nothing gets to the labels. Unless, of course, the ISP tax, levy, or whatever you want to call it today goes through. I suspect that’s why you and others are pushing so hard for such a tax, levy, whatever name it goes by. Even if NO ONE buys ANYTHING the artists in the heaviest rotations continue to get money, the labels continue to get even more, and the no matter how many people boycott, the labels make money. They will make money if no one ever buys anything again. I already posted this same thing. Maybe you didn’t read it. Continue throwing red herrings and ‘fear the government’ rhetoric if you want, that won’t make anyone here think an ISP tax is feasible, or even workable. We recognize distractions used in place of arguments.
November 22nd, 2009 at 11:44 pm
As I said, the scope goes way beyond just ISP’s. Since Indy asked for it, I did write a “manifesto” if anyone want’s to read my opinion of bailouts/stimulus it’s here: http://thefrogmouth.blogspot.com/2009/11/bailouts-and-stimulus.html
I did read your link regarding stimulus money for ISP’s, it looks like that is geared towards getting them to expand broadband coverage to rural communities. I don’t think it’s a bad idea to get broadband to rural communities, but I think the stimulus money would maybe be better spent setting them up with municipal wifi, rather than trying to bribe Comcast or some other large ISP into providing service there.
November 23rd, 2009 at 8:38 am
” ’ve refused to ‘address’ things? ”
Yes, consistently.
Instead of a productive discussion of the levy, you’ve thrown distractions about the ‘government’.
When asked for proof of specific sites making money, you broadly announce that since the ENTIRE internet makes money, it owes you a living. I pointed out there are a specific set of procedures to address the individual websites that are using your content, you never responded.
When AllofMP3 was discussed, you never did address any of those points, especially the one about whether you get anything from them, especially after I posted proof of their legality, and the fact they pay their collective societies. Thats money made the labels turn their nose up at.
Yes you consistently sidestep, avoiding direct answers, demonstrate a not so subtle condescension towards us, and throw off topic ’scare’ articles to throw off the discussion of a tax, levy, whatever name it goes by today. I addressed your ‘jab’ about the library in the thread the subject first came up, perhaps you were to busy avoiding other questions to read my original response. in this thread on Oct 17th
http://a2f2a.com/2009/11/12/you-lost-me-at-isp-levy/#comments
Post number 94 to quote
“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.”
perhaps you were on your Xbox when I responded ?
November 23rd, 2009 at 8:43 am
oops, post 94 was created November 17th not October 17th.
Misread the date.
November 23rd, 2009 at 10:56 am
Wind from Kaspersky is not the same as something actually happening. There are two points that Indiana consistently conflates, perhaps unintentionally.
1. Yes, the security and freedom of the internet is constantly under attack. Everybody with a dead business model wants to convert it into a revenue stream, people wants their critics silenced, governments want to restrict the ability of their people to organize and share information.
This is a very real issue and I feel confident in saying that every single one of “us” is concerned about it and has taken action against it, and continues to do so. The combined voices of the people grow ever stronger thanks to the internet we strive to defend and in fact, many differences HAVE been made (Check out eff.org).
2. No, the fact that the internet is under attack does not mean p2p users are in any way obligated to come to some kind of “compromise” that allows people like Indiana Gregg to use the 21st century internet as a 20th century revenue stream. She has set up a false dichotomy where fighting against three strikes is incompatible with supporting new and innovative business models over outdated ones.
Thus:
Every one of us actively fights against attacks on the internet, and most if not all of us want to see artists embrace new business models instead of trying to find artificial ways to prop up old ones. Pay-for-play, subscription services, levies, all of these things are poor attempts to translate the broken analog permission culture to the digital era.
Stop trying to hang on to content that has already been declared free, and start thinking about ways to leverage this free content to make money creating more and sell actual scarce items. At the core, all of this is just business. Yours isn’t working, so change it. Don’t try and force the world to change to be more convenient for you, and please don’t insult my intelligence by suggesting that if I don’t support your flawed ideas the interest is going to get locked down.
November 23rd, 2009 at 11:09 am
^selling…internet
November 23rd, 2009 at 3:44 pm
Dred is right, there is no way the RIAA could survive off of library sales.
November 23rd, 2009 at 5:17 pm
@Dresdnik First of all, I’m not a ‘moderator’ on here, so, I don’t think I am expected to answer every single comment made. This thread, in particular, (see above) isn’t a thread about a ‘levy’. It’s about the net not being a ’sales’ vehicle and ‘net neutrality’. Net neutrality having to do with ISPs, which in my opinion has a lot to do with who is funding them.
I wouldn’t consider my question about a ‘library’ in the other thread as a ‘jab’ either? That doesn’t make sense to me.
It’s just that you use libraries which are publicly funded. It has nothing to do with how many copies of anything that the library ‘buys’. That’s not the point. The point is, You use libraries. How many poeple do you know that don’t use libraries but still pay the taxes that keep those libraries operational.
Part of the frustration I see that you may have from what you are trying to do (boycott) and the p2p community is, put simply, given the size of that community, it is obvious that most of the people who ’share’ are not actively interested in a boycott on major labels. If they were, by sheer numbers alone, you’d have influence because if even 15% of that entire community cared enough, you would be heard. But, once you do have that mass of people, if the message to government is something ike ‘Boycott major record labels’, there’s a good chance they won’t listen. But, If your message is about a workable solution, chances are they will listen. Personally, I have no idea what your message is. So far, all I know about you is that you hate the RIAA.
Since you’ve expressed that your aim is about boycotting the RIAA, then, that’s fine for you to do and that’s your choice.
Look at the creative industries in the USA alone, which (according to the following link) contributes $1.52 trillion to the US GDP, you’ll see that these 11 thousand people have formed an ‘alliance’ through a petition: http://www.copyrightalliance.org/letter/ So, the way I see it, the only way you would be able to counter that kind of influence would be to get 20k or more people to sign an alternative petition with some kind of counter-offer with a viable model that works across all the creative industries combined.
Me Ignoring questions? Most of the ‘business models’ that have been suggested here are things that most artists do already (like play live, sell merch, etc.) and most of them are based upon the notion of ‘low budget’ recordings to be used as a promotional vehicle. I’ve mentioned several times for someone in the group to project that same type of model to books, films, tv shows, media, etc. and that question actually HAS been repeatedly avoided. Are actors and actresses meant to perform their movies ‘live’ as plays on stage now? Are authors meant to not be paid for their digital books? Are book authors then meant to go around the country and read their books out-loud to audiences in order to make money from their books? I’m not going to harass or accuse you or anybody else of ‘ignoring’ these questions just because I asked them. This is a blog/forum discussion board not some kind of inquisition or interrogation.
Your questions about Sites (companies) that generate income from directly exploiting music was answered in two separate threads and I didn’t understand what you meant because the answer to the question is so obvious and the list of websites is so extremely long.
If Allomp3 was discussed and if they are (like you said) ‘legal’ and pay artists, then that’s great. If they pay money to the societies, that’s great too. But, the societies only collect on behalf of the songwriters. I’m a songwriter and I don’t see allomp3 on any of my statements. So, maybe they only pay to societies within their own country? I don’t know. I don’t run their company and haven’t heard of their ‘deals’ or how they operate. However, the labels would never see any money from that anyway because sound recordings are not the same as ‘publishing’.
I don’t know where you get this idea of ‘condescending’ remarks and stating that I ‘refuse’ to address things? I’m not a politician. It’s not my job to answer every single post that everyone writes on this forum either. This isn’t some sort of 2-way conversation between myself and everyone else. Just because there aren’t very many artists here doesn’t mean that I’m here to answer every question. I’ve simply put forth an idea about a 2-pronged public license and Isp levy system which is very similar to the ‘public library’ system and you admit yourself that you use the library regularly. In the face of 3-strikes, it seems like there should be some other viable alternatives. I don’t see how the links I’ve posted are in any way ’scare’ links. They ARE links about things that are happening surrounding the issues that are being discussed here.
Nonetheless, I don’t appreciate your remarks about me thinking that the ‘world owes me’ something. That is completely untrue and I wouldn’t be working so hard creating & developing Kerchoonz for indie artists if that were the case. You can disagree with me all you want and say that recorded music has no value, etc or that you think the cost for recorded music should go into ticket prices for shows, or whatever you think; however, making these kind of ‘attack’ statements or putting words in my mouth that I never said isn’t productive.
November 23rd, 2009 at 5:28 pm
@monkey I read your rant about the stimulus package. I wonder what inflation rates will be like over the next decade.
November 23rd, 2009 at 6:29 pm
” If Allomp3 was discussed and if they are (like you said) ‘legal’ and pay artists, then that’s great. If they pay money to the societies, that’s great too. ”
I didn’t just ’say’ it, I provided links to proof.
” Nonetheless, I don’t appreciate your remarks about me thinking that the ‘world owes me’ something. That is completely untrue and I wouldn’t be working so hard creating & developing Kerchoonz for indie artists if that were the case. ”
Likewise, neither I or anyone else appreciate the suggestion that all we do is comment and don’t act.
” and say that recorded music has no value, ”
I never said that ..
” or that you think the cost for recorded music should go into ticket prices for shows, ”
or this .. words in whose mouth ?
Asking you to back up claims isn’t an attack.
Calling you out for not backing up you claims isn’t ‘attacking’.
Calling us a bunch of Xbox playing do nothings isn’t productive either. Bald assumptions that we don’t read isn’t productive either. If you consider my desire to see references and sources to back up claims as an ‘attack’ so be it. For not being a ‘politician’ your sharing many of their worst traits right now, and I don’t believe I’m the only one that’s getting that impression.
November 23rd, 2009 at 7:13 pm
@Dredd @robert
This is just a thought. But, let’s take EMI as an example. The boycott may have broken them. So, what do you think will happen to them? Chances are, they will be bought by a bigger fish. Who would that bigger fish be? Maybe they will merge with Warners? Whoever gets in there and bids will soon have that ‘copyright’. Imagine if it were possible for p2p users to buy them out. It’s not likely that it would happen. Boycotting the labels might make them disappear as the entities that they are now or once were, but, don’t you think that somebody ‘bigger’ might eat them up anyway? And, if that’s the case and you agree, who do you think those bigger fish will be? It’s just a thought.
Part of what I think (and I’m only assuming) you are trying to do is to break down those monopolies and perhaps try to render copyright obsolete (at least in it’s application to digital and use on the web). I’m seriously not trying to annoy you or anything here, but, isn’t it kind of obvious what will more than likely happen?
The truth is, your theory about using the library does work. So, do you think that the ‘library’ scenario perhaps work and apply to the web? You might say “well, it already is”. But, the problem with maybe saying that would be that you would completely knock out a huge section of the economy (something that governments are absolutely not keen to do). Somehow, I don’t see this as something so black and white. It’s not simply (in Peter Sunde & Rick Falkvinge’s analogy) some ice that wasn’t scarce anymore due to the invention of the refrigerator. We’re talking about a lot bigger portion of the economy over much less time with much further reach. So, all things copyright or copyleft aside, and in view of the global recession (which spread with rampant force primarily due to our ability to access information so quickly, causing an intense spiral of events over little time) This is the big question. What choices would or should be made? Let’s say that you were in a position as an MP or senator or whatever (depending upon what country you live).
Is this something wonderful? Or is it the influence of the new ‘instant coffee’ society where everything done can more quickly effect everything else we do so much more intensely that we are going to have to start seriously measuring our teaspoons?
I keep rubbing my head thinking, ok, so, they want this kind of ‘everything free’ scenario. (Which would be really amazing). But, the other side of my brain tells me that the ‘no free lunch’ principle still applies. I’ve said this before, you know, it’s not like I have all the answers. You know that I don’t and I know that you don’t. I see what you envision. But, you’d be erasing the world back quite a few years if the ’scarcity’ issue really worked. Remember the ‘Gold Standard’? Why is it that now the US economy is controlled by the Federal Reserve (a private bank made up of individuals and corps?) It’s because scarcity no longer applied. The american dollar could no longer be backed by Gold. In an ideal world, or utopia, something like ’scarcity’ could apply. If you read jon’s most recent entry about how ‘if 3000 people could pay $1 per month and then apply history and the ‘gold standard’ to it… and then apply all of that to the future. Where do you see us all? and then, HOW?)
November 23rd, 2009 at 7:17 pm
@ dreddsnik I think you know that I wasn’t calling “YOU” someone who sits around his Xbox. But, the reality is, a certain demographic is doing that. More and more people everywhere are doing less and less for our culture than ever before. More people than ever have become apathetic in our Western culture. It’s because we are somewhat spoilt. I know you wouldn’t disagree with that because I’m pretty sure it’s part of your frustration with the things that you care about and the influence and impact that you are trying to have on the world through your boycott. I completely understand and empathise with that.
November 23rd, 2009 at 8:25 pm
Recorded music absolutely has value – it just has no price. People who continue to pay for recorded music do so for other reasons, such as collectability, tangibility, or convenience. Free does not mean devalued!
Why is it necessary to explain to you how a model that works for music scales to every other legacy industry you name, for you to believe that it works for music? Even so, there are plenty of examples, from “Paranormal Activity” having a far greater ROI than many big budget movies, to Cory Doctorow getting on the NYT best seller list when offering the text free online (and Neil Gaiman trying the same thing). The idea is always the same: Connect with fans and give them a reason to buy.
This means selling them something they actually want, not trying to convert people to CD sales or getting paid retroactively for listens or streams. Eventually places like Allofmp3.com should have no need to pay anybody because what they are selling (convenience) is something completely unrelated to the mp3 files.
It’s not about “not paying artists,” it’s about selling something people will pay for.
At the end of the day, I was under the impression that the “artists” in a2f2a were music artists, and most of the discussion has revolved around that. We’re trying to help you, specifically, so I’m a little confused as to why you believe that what I propose to help you needs to apply directly to other, different fields.
No, actors don’t take their movies “live,” that’s called theater. But paying everybody in the film industry a reasonable amount (try using a grip’s wages as a baseline), eliminating “windowed” releases and showing a movie on screen, DVD, and Pay-per-View all at once, providing an opportunity to buy a DVD of a just-shown movie to exiting theatergoers, improving the overall movie theater experience, giving fans opportunities to pay additional money to watch the movie with the actors or other special opportunities to connect, and demonstrating clearly that all revenue is going directly to the actual costs incurred by the people who worked to create it would go a long way to “improving” the business (one, I might add, that isn’t hurting from “piracy” at all). P2p sharing only promotes that business model, because people are paying for something other than what they already saw for free online, and perhaps are more likely to pay for because they saw it online.
November 23rd, 2009 at 9:29 pm
Dear Robert,
Reading through your thread. How fair is it really? Aren’t you asking artistic people to be ’super heroes’. Are you not asking them to do three jobs instead of one?
That’s as if allomp3 actually put the work into the ‘works’ that they would have been exploiting in the first place? So, they sell ‘convenience’ off of other people’s backs? Aren’t we then reinventing ’slavery’? That would be a real shame after we’ve spent the past century or more trying to eliminate it?
With regards to your question. Why should it be that in a digital world that simply because you can apply one scenario to one aspect that you wouldn’t need to create a fair playing field for the rest? You’ll ask me why. But, to be fair, I would need to continue to ask you ‘why not’. Create me a model for everyone. If, indeed, you are promoting ‘fair play’… tell me why it shouldn’t be applied? At it’s core, the only reason why none of you are willing to answer ‘why not’ is the same reason why you feel like ‘underdogs’ in the lobbying corner. It’s the same reason why this ‘copyright versus ‘copyleft’ also isn’t putting the cards through the way you’d like them to be played.
On another scenario. Selling doesn’t have anything to do with selling people ‘what they want’. It has and always will be based upon what you can sell based upon what people ‘think they need’… otherwise, you wouldn’t have a bunch of tabloid nonsense selling people hand bags, chanel, and all kinds of over-priced nonsense that only tells people about being ‘cool’ or branding. Music should never have anything to do with that. Soz mate, but, these standards don’t apply when you have the likes of Murdoch preaching day-after-day to a society who thinks that brands, cars, handbags and name-dropping have anything to do with life. Luckily, they only infiltrate a middle-to-upper class. In the meanwhile, sincerely answer the question and apply it to all of the IP people. Sure, apply it to the ‘musician’ and how ‘free’ we still are to do all of things we’ve been doing for ages and centuries. Why’s it so hard for you to apply it to everyone else who are in our same boat? Why Not? Why not tell me how this could work for book writers, actors, actresses, come on now? You can tell me all about why I should still do all the things I do every day of the week. Tell me about why you can’t apply it to the other parts of the creative industries. Then, we can sort out that ‘level’ playing field. That’s all I’m asking of you. Once you sort that out, I’ll be a fan.
November 23rd, 2009 at 9:45 pm
@Indiana
This was a while ago, so I don’t have the link but I do recall AllofMP3 claiming that the RIAA refused to deal with ROMS, the Russian collection agency and instead attempted to force AllofMP3 out of business. That could be why no artist has received any money from them. It could very well be that ROMS shares certain similarities to soundexchange, in that they are less than eager to disburse money owed, but that should be an issue with ROMS, not AllofMP3.com.
A library is a municipal entity, same as a school. A net tax/levy would go directly to a private collection agency, then disbursed mostly if not exclusively to copyright owners who then may or may not make payments from that to artists. I’m not saying you can’t dig up a plethora of examples of public money doled out directly to corporations, but that does NOT present a case for more of the same, if anything just the opposite.
November 24th, 2009 at 3:49 am
SteelWolf, good points, but bear in mind the difference between recorded music and copies of recorded music. The former is valuable, expensive, and takes skill to produce, the latter can be made for next to nothing on a PC and given away. There is a market for recorded music, but no longer a market for copies of it.
Artists make recorded music. Record labels help them record it so the label can sell copies.
Record labels can no longer sell copies, and so artists must find a better customer.
Their fans.
November 24th, 2009 at 5:42 am
@robert This is the mission statement of a2f2a. It’s pretty clear. http://a2f2a.com/mission-statement/
It doesn’t say anything about ‘music’. It does say ‘artists’. By definiton, this includes musicians, actors, actresses, poets, novelists, painters, photographers, etc. etc.
November 24th, 2009 at 7:24 am
@ Monkey (and anyone else who’s interested), on allofMP3.com (in part):
http://www.p2pnet.net/story/8895
http://www.p2pnet.net/story/10178
http://www.p2pnet.net/story/10861
http://www.p2pnet.net/story/11277
http://www.p2pnet.net/story/12348
http://www.p2pnet.net/story/13184
Cheers!
November 24th, 2009 at 7:52 am
I’ve covered the corporate-spawned misconception that p2p users and Free Culture advocates “just want everything for free” numerous times. In short, nobody has ever said that. Everybody is willing to pay money for things they actually want – and that does not include free things like digital copies.
November 24th, 2009 at 8:30 am
@Indianna,
1) Why do you suddenly refer to me when I have not posted anything in several days?
2) If you are going to refer to a thread or comment long after someone has posted it, can you provide a link or at least give the comment number?
Response to comments 58, 61, 64
You continually go on about actors/actresses/producers/set folks/best boy/key grips etc… What they do is clearly not digital and they would be paid for their efforts as they are.
People here have already suggested how to pay for movies and books. People here have already linked (and on p2pnet) how new artists are creating books and movies using filesharing as a ‘free’ or low-cost-alternative distribution tool.
So all those people you have listed do have alternatives for income. We’re not asking for super heroes. What are these three jobs you are referring to? Again, post a link or quote or something so we have references to what you are debating against.
When you are an artist you have to do more than just create. If all you want to do is create, then you need to work with someone to market/sell your creation. That means you have to share the costs of revenue.
Do you know why I buy Matthew Good’s music and go to his concerts when I could just as easily download for free and watch youtube? Because he connects with his fans! All the things he does is the reason to buy! From free ticket competitions for concerts if you put his banner on your myspace, to free concert that’s being filmed but only ticket winners can attend, to blogging about human rights, to raising money for BCSPCA, to raising mental illness awareness and sharing all of this with his fans. He even sometimes writes to us, as comments are gone from the site.
These things he does, and there’s a lot more he could do as we have suggested things for artists to do, but what he does gives us a reason to buy! Simply making a recording and releasing it is not a reason to buy.
You have to take part in the connection with fans. No more are we interested in Spin or Rolling Stone magazine articles as a means of finding out about our favourite artists. We don’t need them, we can connect directly!
Look, gone are the days of the $20 million for Tom Cruise to make out with some girl, blow things up, and perform a few of his own stunts.
The field IS level.
In your definition of level, the fans/consumers still get screwed, which means the field is truly not level.
November 24th, 2009 at 10:36 am
Another thing, Hollywood is starving for content, at least they make it appear that way.
Dreddsnik or DA was mentioning about Frank Zappa saying in the 60’s the executives in the music biz were “what is it? I don’t know.. put it out there.. if it sells, great.” He went on to say that is missing from the labels today.
That ‘give it a chance’ mentality is also missing from Hollywood as well.
They only take chances on things that cost $100 million or more and will rake in double or more.
There are many films I have seen that don’t contain massive doses of sex, drugs, violence and language. Instead they had modest budgets, real character developments, thought provoking ideas/messages/performances, and decent story lines.
Hollywood looks to other countries to rip them off. I have seen both The Lakehouse and Il Mare. Il Mare is Korean and 10x better than The Lakehouse which is really a less-than-decent remake. My Sassy Girl is the same thing. The Grudge, Dark Water, The Skeleton Key, they are all remakes!
Hell, Hollywood is remaking their own stuff that was successful before. And you wonder why people download first?
You can take a turd and wrap it up any way you like, it’s still a turd (thanks Surfer/Dred/DA for that line).
I’m sorry folks, but Hollywood is lacking in creativity and their sense of “entitlement” from actors/’creators’ and “must be a massive ROI” is the reason they are not doing as well as they could be.
And despite it all, still many hundreds of scripts are turned away because they don’t contain enough, or any, violence/T&A/drugs/language to please the sheep Hollywood desires to cater to. They want to entertain, nothing more. The bigger the effects, the better is their motto. No storyline required.
Sure, once in a while it is nice to turn your mind off and let your eyes and ears be entertained. Sometimes you HAVE to turn your mind off otherwise you’ll demand your money back.
So to help the movie folks, they need to be creative and give those who do create great stories but don’t have any funding a chance. It won’t make 100’s of millions, but they will still be profitable. And people WILL pay to see it.
Books are the same. Author’s are already releasing material for free and finding people buy their books. Monty Python released their movies for free and their sales skyrocketed.
Live performances can use YouTube for those to sample and get an idea of what the play/ballet/opera will be like. They’ll get to more people!
They could have an online show to cut down traveling costs. Imagine seeing a play you really enjoy for only $3 online because you live in Israel where Death of a Salesman does not ever get performed. For those in NYC, they can pay $40 to see it live, for those outside NYC or the touring circuit, they can pay $3 for a stream of it.
“Why would they pay if they could get it for free the next day?” Because the OPTION is there and people will take that option, regardless of how many oranges are taken from the basket left out front on the door step. You don’t just leave the basket out there, you give people a reason to buy!!!!
And as SteelWolf says, these models here are for music because that’s whom we’ve been talking with. Mainly two of you, but Mr Ely is here once in a while (Louie Louie). Maybe if authors, producers (There’s one who does it all — he posted earlier and stopped posting because few commented on his posts — Personally I think his insight was incredible! And didn’t warrant a comment beyond “damn good job”), actors, poets, etc… came here too, you would see more posts with different models adapted for their industry.
After searching I can’t find that person, but anyhow, the point is right now we’re talking with musicians and not every idea presented applies across the board. It’s not meant to!
Yes I know the blanket levy would apply across the board, but we’ve already proven through extensive logic and historical references how that concept (tax/levy/licensing) will fail.
You too, Indianna/Billy, may feel like you’re ready to give up. That’s normal. But just as you feel we are not “getting” what you are saying, we feel the same towards you. The only thing is that you guys tend to misinterpret what we are saying, while we seem to have a stronger understanding of what you are saying. But you guys are not recognizing that we DO understand what you are saying! And we are disagreeing.
November 24th, 2009 at 10:49 am
You Saying that the playing level is level right now because of p2p but, you still want to see artists getting ‘paid’ would be like me saying well, guess what, we already have a system called copyright that does that ensures that artists do get paid, and it has been doing so successfully for 217 years.
I don’t know who you’re trying to fool if you say that book authors aren’t artists. With your scenario, they would need to go out and tour and read their books live to people and sell t-shirts to survive (since the Kindle, etc and all books becoming digitised, etc.)
Yes, I think you’re right. The field is level. We have copyright. Now I’m beginning to understand why so many people are supporting 3-strikes even though I hate the idea. I think it’s pretty obvious.
November 24th, 2009 at 10:53 am
Artists connect with their fans all the time. I’m fairly sure that what you are describing is the main reason why we’re going to have ACTA and 3-strikes pushed through and the next series of laws. http://www.copyrightalliance.org/letter/
November 24th, 2009 at 1:57 pm
@Indianna:
“I don’t know who you’re trying to fool if you say that book authors aren’t artists. With your scenario, they would need to go out and tour and read their books live to people and sell t-shirts to survive (since the Kindle, etc and all books becoming digitised, etc.)
Yes, I think you’re right. The field is level. We have copyright. Now I’m beginning to understand why so many people are supporting 3-strikes even though I hate the idea. I think it’s pretty obvious.”
You didn’t read what I wrote did you? “So all those people you have listed do have alternatives for income. ” Does NOT directly say that they should follow the music suggestions we have provided here. I was adding to SteelWolf’s comments.
I am very disappointed in you that you have chosen to comment as you have. You’re suffering from slippery slope fallacy and strawman fallacy in your comments.
Crosbie has put a ridiculous amount of time and effort explaining how copyright is not working fine. And if copyright ensured artists get paid they why is it Eminmen is suing his label for not paying him his royalties from purchased digital downloads? Because he doesn’t own the copyrights that’s why.
“So many people” are supporting 3-strikes because that’s all they know. So guess what, no one will buy your stuff with three strikes in place! The cost of maintaining such a system will eat up any money you feel you are owed.
And the false disconnections will result in lawsuits against ISP’s which will forward the costs onto the government and labels pushing for 3strikes in the form of lawsuits between ISP and Labels.
You won’t get anything, nothing, zero, zilch!
You are bitter and upset and completely misinterpreting what people are saying. You are putting words into people’s mouths out of frustration because every idea you come up with is met with a lot of negative response.
Now you know what it feels like to try to tell someone, like yourself, that you’re seeing things in a light that prevents you from seeing the future. That’s what we deal with when trying to explain this to you!
November 24th, 2009 at 4:07 pm
You obviously didn’t read what I wrote about 3-strikes. You’re again, putting words into my mouth. You obviously have missed out that I’ve been campaigning against 3-strikes. It sounds like you are bitter and upset because you might be realising that your money will soon be wasted through such a legislation. I’m not bitter about any money that I think I’m owed! That’s just nonsense (again, you projecting ideas and thoughts onto me). I am bitter that the p2p community has literally provoked this series of actions which will ultimately lead to tighter ‘laws’ around the internet all for the sake of being unable to adapt the technology whereby it compensates the rightsholder and creators directly. As a result, the entire public will suffer.
The problem IS exactly what you’ve mentioned. Disconnections lead to lawsuits (above and beyond the millions that will be spent). I just think people are dreaming if they think that there won’t be a pretty hefty cost to society simply because they want to have the ‘right to endlessly copy’. The future is a clamp-down. And it’s being provoked by people who can’t see that artistic people deserve to be compensated when their works are used.
You are up against a tillion dollar industry of ‘creative’ people who are actively protesting against your ‘theory’ of the future. As a result, you’re getting stuff like ACTA and 3-strikes pushed through and rather than actually coming up with a solution that could work for everyone, you’re writing me about a rose-colored future?
What is happening here is p2p is trying to push a ‘new model’ down creative people’s throats in a world where protection mechanisms have been set up and precedence has been set forth. These laws exist to protect the rights of ‘individuals’. Corporations and organisations like the RIAA or the major labels may have abused the use of copyright in the past, however, this does not mean that you just suddenly throw out the protection for the individual.
What actually is happening is that this kind of ‘dreamy future’ idea is backfiring on you and everyone else now through legislation. No Western government is going to agree with that idea. I think it’s wrong to squelch new technology, but, I won’t agree with you about this ‘bright’ future where book authors, musician’s, film makers, and every other creative person is meant to busk because their works are ‘free’ on every Kindle and iPod on the planet and they simply must busk or ask for donations. I’m fairly certain that a public license will be introduced in the future and more than likely a levy or tax system. But, only after they use their ‘hammer’ to hit the nails that stick out the most through 3-strikes and ACTA.
It’s pretty clear what the future looks like. It’s a severe clamp down and the future will ultimately be the ‘end of the internet as we know it’, all for the sake of one small sector of the entire net: p2p users. That’s the truth of the matter. Once this bill is passed and ACTA comes through and pulls their weight, do you honestly think that they will stop and say ‘aww, it’s too bad, our idea was a failure’? Of course not, they will introduce new measures. For one small sector of ‘file-sharers’, everyone in society will end up paying for it.
Trust that I have no reason to be ‘bitter’. I’m an entrepreneur and don’t have any problem doing business with or without the internet. This isn’t about me. It is about a poorly thought through strategy. The only thing that WILL make me bitter is having these kinds of legislations like 3-strikes which cost the public all due to a select group of file-sharers who only represent a portion of net users.
I’m disappointed in you that you are unable to provide any form of potential compromise that would actually be ‘heard’ by government. A reasonable alternative, for example. I’m disappointed that people keep talking about Hollywood and Major record labels when the situation for the smaller film makers and musician’s are worsening. I see bands and artists all the time. I work with them. I talk to them. They mostly have to ‘pay to play’ here in the UK.
Remember, big fish always swallow smaller fish. In the future, you may not have major labels, they will be bought by bigger fish. They won’t simply die or go away. Right now, they are doing deals like crazy with ISPs.
The problem is that your vision of the future isn’t based upon reality. It’s based on wishful thinking.
November 24th, 2009 at 5:14 pm
@Indiana
You have mentioned book authors; here is a guy who seems to be doing well releasing his works under a creative commons license.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cory_Doctorow
You need to get a better feel for some of the people here, the rep from PPUK has posted that he is willing to compromise somewhat on the copyright issue, as have I and some others. The one thing that is absolutely hated is a net tax/levy, and I’m not going to reiterate why, it has been stated many times by me or others. I’ve already stated elsewhere that as the artists are not willing to give up copyright, the p2p crowd is not going to accept a net tax/levy idea. Artists might ask;”why should I oppose a tax/levy and or a three strikes law?” I would say they should oppose it because either will be damaging to fan/artist relationships. If someone gets his net service cut off, and loses his job because he needs that do you think he’s just going to blame the RIAA, or do you think he’s going to hold accountable whatever musicians names are listed as the illegal downloads that got his web access killed? What if he is innocent, but doesn’t have the money to spend months fighting it out in court, especially if as I already mentioned his job depended on net access? Think that can’t happen, think again. WEP is an open slut, and that’s all I’ll say about that.
November 24th, 2009 at 5:29 pm
“… there’s one who does it all”
Robert, If you were talking about me there, thanks for the respect. If not… well, I’ll take the opportunity anyway of saying that I’m still very much onside with the radicals in this camp. I’ve been following along and have learnt a lot in the last while from you and the rest (Dredd, Steelwolf, Crosbie, DA).
Credit is due also to Indiana for serving you up such lobs. Without her languorous arguments you might be talking amongst yourselves. I must say in passing that her remark about copyright being a level playing field is a mile from the mark. I’ve been in the trenches forever and believe me copyright was for Royalty only. The term is instructive. Only the privileged got benefits. The rest of us found other ways just like everyone is now going to have to find other ways. And soon.
Don’t think your words fall on deaf ears. I consistently have conversations in my studio with people from all over the industry and slowly they’re getting it. Being that bit better informed now thanks to reading these posts here, sometimes passionate, often intelligent, I’m able to make the case with more authority than before. That’s how things change, brick upon brick until the new wall is up.
Keep doing what you’re doing. We’re all artists and we’re all fans.
(I didn’t go off in a strop before… I’m just insanely busy making music recordings and getting paid for them!!)
November 24th, 2009 at 5:49 pm
@Indianna,
Thank you for revealing your true self.
When the push comes to shove the true self shows up. Your comments indicated you were bitter or angry or frustrated. You took it out of context and chose to try to reverse it on me. I never proclaimed to know why, only suggested, but you are clearly frustrated our you would not have reacted with such aggression.
And your comments really show that you don’t care about consumers or fans like you proclaimed. Correction, you only care if they are paying and doing as they are told.
It’s sad you don’t see that you will lose before the consumer does.
We offered a compromise, you didn’t like it so apparently that means we didn’t offer a compromise?
This is what happens when only two artists show up. Only one chooses to discuss and then changes their tune and goes against the p2p folks. This illustrates that you don’t see where we are coming from. Our comments to Billy are the same as to you.
You cannot clamp down on the internet! Let that go!
We will NOT tolerate any more cash grab from governments bought by labels. And you won’t get any money either. And we’ll both be in the same situation we are now!
You forget, many of us were and still are artists! There’s a post on Dred’s history, you might want to read that, for example. Others have said they were in paying bands at one time or another or still are.
I don’t recall seeing too many p2p supporters in here explain what their occupation is, so your assumption about who we are is actually quite false. We know who you are and what you do. But we don’t make false claims about you based-upon suspicion of your occupation. We make claims about what you write and only what you write or seem to not understand based upon what you write .
Cool off please!
November 24th, 2009 at 6:27 pm
NOTES:
“And you won’t get any money either”
To Prevent Context Misunderstandings: Means if 3strikes/levy/tax happens you won’t see a dime more.
“Only one chooses to discuss and then changes their tune and goes against the p2p folks”
To Prevent Context Misunderstandings: Means only one artist at a time engages on this site, naturally you’ll be overwhelmed as the p2p-ers hound you with questions and offer suggestions and we BOTH offer criticisms to eachother’s suggestions. When you’re overwhelmed you’ll become upset and that’s when you’ll say as you did ( paraphrased ) “Copyrights will work, 3 strikes will work, levies will work because there’s nothing you can do to stop it. We’ll get our money from you.”
And don’t forget, you too are guilty of ramming your levy/license idea down our throats. And just as you claim our donation idea is “dreamy” so is your idea that you’ll see a dime from your license as dreamy.
Our proof that your idea won’t work is the past. The past has shown that artists and consumers get screwed.
The future lies in something new that works. Governments will not adopt 3strikes/passports/ACTA IF they see fans and artists working together!
Our work – we pay you. Your work – do not demand how we pay you, work WITH us instead of shooting down something that’s never been done before!
Those billions of dollars claim to go to support the economy, maybe we should look at who gets paid what? Maybe we should see where the trillion dollar entertainment industry money really goes. How much is spent on actual production and how much goes into pockets of rich executives and how much goes into lobbying and lawyers?
Once you, and the politicians that are actually conscious and can think, will notice the claims of economic meltdown if Hollywood/Music industries are not “saved” through “lockdown” is totally bullshit!
We know it and you artists (all artists) know it!
November 24th, 2009 at 8:01 pm
@Clark Sorely
YES It was you! I couldn’t find the post while at work, trying to work and reply at the same time.
Thank you for replying, it was driving me nuts not knowing whom it was.
I am glad you’re still tuning in and making music too!
Cheers!
November 24th, 2009 at 8:12 pm
@Clark what you heard from me was and “if” “then” scenario… What I actually ‘did’ say was that p2p advocates saying that ‘today’s’ playing field is ‘level’ would be as if I were to say that ‘copyright’ was a level paying field… Then, I go on to create the scenario. It’s an effort to try to make people actually ‘think’ rather than constantly reiterating the same things over 10 years.
@robert Huh? what you are saying is delusional. You live in a world where you have corporate interest connected to government and the third party is the ISPs who are suddenly connected to both. But, you’re dreaming in the middle of it all. You’re presenting a compromise? (Show me where please?) All you’ve done so far is suddenly “show artists” how to do things they have been doing for centuries! Since when did musician’s not perform live, not connect with their ‘fans’ or not sell their scarce resources in exchange for bread? (Cite that date please!)
You seem to be taking mushrooms with your line “YOU cannot clamp down on the internet, just let go”… Hellooooooo It’s not me clamping down! It’s YOU. It’s a result of you trying to deface the realities that you are trying to reckon with, fight against, etc. YOU are trying to fair face against a 1 trillion dollar industry (in the US alone) plus the rest of the world? And your argument is simply “well, we can now make copies, therefore, why should we pay for them?”
I much prefer @monkey’s rationalisation via what at least the PPUK are trying to do. But, you @robert are still smoking with the hippies at the moment. YOU, robert are the very people who are making things like ‘3-strikes’ happen. You are wasting our time and money. YOU are not offering any form of compromise. PPUK is actually being rational. By sheer lack of ‘reading’ you assume that I know what your occupation is? OK, can you send me th link please?
Come on, be realistic here. Extremes are only going to force-feed your 3-strikes down everyone’s throats (even artists are going to pay DIRECTLY for that.) Thank GOD that PPUK is being rational. The pipe dream isn’t.
November 24th, 2009 at 11:07 pm
@Indiana
Gonna ask you for something you won’t like, here it is. Please don’t blame anyone here for three strikes or any other crud the RIAA/MPAA attempts to ram down people throats. FAC’s air statement is in support of three strikes, so yeah there is some hostility from the p2p side emanating from that, as well as the insistence on a net tax/levy. The RIAA/MPAA isn’t going to like PPUK’s ideas or mine any better than Crosbie’s or Robert’s. They want to keep things exactly as they are, with very long copyright duration and them as the rights holders. They are going to do their best to ram three strikes through no matter what reforms were agreed upon here.
I have no fucking idea why, but it seems like when a wrong is perpetrated there is always the tendency to blame the victim. A woman get’s raped and you hear nonsense like “she wore slutty cloths”, “she was in a bad area”, “she led him on”. Three strikes is a form or corporate ass rape and no, the p2p crowed who will be victimized by it are NOT to blame.
November 25th, 2009 at 5:00 am
I’m likewise confused why @robert wants to project some sort of idea that I’m ‘upset’ or that I need to ‘cool down’. That’s not the case at all (and never has been) in any of these threads. The ‘true colors’ are shining through, you are constantly projecting things upon me that are not true. I’m very sorry that you feel threatened by my blog about a public license and ISP contributive system. But, just because it ‘exists’ doesn’t mean I’ve rammed anything down your throat? On the other hand, if it weren’t for the attitude of the p2p community, there wouldn’t be 3-strikes.
November 25th, 2009 at 6:45 am
I now see why Dreddsnik, Devil’sAdvocate, etc… stopped commenting on this thread.
Your comments indicate a lot of assumptions about my views and what I do/don’t do. Which comments? Well your last post, number 78, is riddled with insults saying I’m not compromising and oddly saying that I am clamping down on the ‘Net.
You took a lot of things I said out of context and made a lot of assumptions about what my viewpoints are. I don’t agree with your viewpoints and I gave you reasons why they would not work. Those comments are way above in this thread and in other threads.
Then while you were discussing with Dreddsnik, becoming more frustrated as your word choice and phrasing indicated, you decided to include me in your diatribe. I responded.
Sorry but I have lost interest in debating with you. You started out open minded but suddenly changed your tune. You said to Dred he was attacking you and since then you’ve been sending insults around. Additionally, you have not read clearly and what you don’t understand, you use some generalized assumption basis that didn’t exist with you before.
I don’t know what happened to you, but you’re correct that I am wasting my time, but that’s trying to discuss with you. Clark Sorley gets it. Trent Reznor gets it. Half the people on my MySpace get it.
It doesn’t matter if you don’t.
November 25th, 2009 at 6:54 am
@81
Sorry but the innocent spin isn’t going to work. Your number 78 shows you ARE upset and full of attitude, as well as hypocrisy.
“if it weren’t for the attitude of the p2p community, there wouldn’t be 3-strikes” – can you be any more ignorant? p2p community spends MORE money on music and movies than the non-p2p group. p2p community are here right now trying to talk to artists and while we will explain how the ideas presented appear to be flawed, we’re not responsible for 3-strikes or downed record sales.
Skim through p2pnet.net or techdirt for reasons why record sales are down, backed up my studies not some spin doctrine from Cary Sherman.
The artists who receive support are not the ones voting yes on 3strikes or trying to sell to the p2p community “it’s all your fault, license or you’ll get 3-strikes.” We’ve been threw this a few threads before. There are alternatives! Others will use them, the p2p community will support them, and those artists will have more than enough bread to live on and save for the future.
Those that don’t, like the industry members that don’t adapt, will fade out of sight.
November 25th, 2009 at 6:54 am
that was 80, not 81
November 25th, 2009 at 8:25 am
Indiana,
I’ll readily admit to being frustrated. Frankly, this discussion feels like physically impacting my head against a solid object, and if it wasn’t for the occasional encouraging comment by people like Clark Sorley I’d have given up a long time ago.
What I keep trying to say again and again is that there is no war, the discussion is not about free vs paid. To quote:
Indiana, you repeatedly insist on getting paid cash directly for something that is ubiquitously available for free. When people like me tell you that this the way to lose in the digital age, and you need to adjust your business model to leverage free content to sell scarce things, you seem to do anything but listen. Instead, you
- Insist that I provide detailed plans for how such a business model would work not only in your industry, but in every other creative medium you can think of.
I have said this many times before: while the specific implementations vary between art forms and even between artists, the concept that works is always the same. The ubiquitous free stuff helps you connect with fans, and your ingenuity helps you give those fans reasons to buy.
- Tell me that this is what artists already do.
Right now many artists do perform live shows and sell merchandise, but that is just the surface. Are they doing this directly with their fans or through their record label? Are they personalizing the experience for fans, perhaps giving a few shirt buyers a backstage pass, or selling a lunch (or the online equivalent) where they can critique a fan’s own creative efforts? CwF+RtB is more than just selling tshirts. It’s a business model that focuses on reaching as many people as possible, and then infusing those scarce objects, like shirts, with additional value that appeals directly to the fans. It’s something that’s near-impossible to execute properly while there are corporate middlemen involved (though new record labels are arising that will help bands do just this).
- Try to play both “sides” of the discussion to get people who don’t like draconian measures such as three-strikes to agree to other draconian measures such as levies.
Every idea you have put forward revolves around locking down the internet, giving you additional control so you can continue to sell your content piece by piece, as you did in the 20th century. Myself and others continually tell you that this is the wrong way to think, and that it will never work. We’re seeing it not working right now. Isn’t it time to consider truly new ideas?
But instead of doing this, you keep trying to wave around current politics as if you are holding some kind of “trump card” (again, something I have said before). You say that you are against things like three-strikes, but as soon as I highlight the gross flaws in your levy scheme, you tell me that “this is why we have things like three strikes.” Why is that, again? You’re saying that because I believe that content cannot be sold in a ubiquitous digital era the same way it was sold in the scarce analog era, and because I refuse to accept an “internet lockdown” to allow you to pursue your scarcity-driven business model, you actually ARE for three strikes (exactly what the FAC decided as well).
Both you and Billy seem to behave like some kind of double agent, trying to leverage what you consider a bigger threat, three strikes, to gather a following of people for a “smaller” threat, like levies. No! It’s all the same flawed thinking and outdated business model that does not work anymore.
So here we are. I get the impression that you are here not to learn about how you can succeed in the digital age, but to try and build “compromise” with those dirty rotten filesharers. This isn’t about compromise, this isn’t about “I will buy mp3s from your digital store if you don’t hit me with three strikes laws.” When we’re all standing on a level field, you are pretending that you’re still atop a tower and trying to build a “middle ground” where you’re only partially infringing on the public’s rights. And that’s supposed to make it okay? As far as I’m concerned there is no difference between three strikes and ISP levies – it’s all horribly invasive and based on the wishful thinking that with enough of a “crackdown,” we can beat the world back to the 20th century.
I continue to fight against these injustices but at the same time, I know that it’s finally become impossible to stop the free flow of information between people. Governments all around the world are trying and the content industry keeps trying to get increasingly disastrous laws passed, yet sharing continues as it always has. The whole thing is a folk devil for those who refuse to adapt – “music” is doing just fine, as is every other creative medium, it’s just that the leftovers stamping their feet and insisting that the old way is the only way are losing out.
If you think you will ever be able to stop p2p in any appreciable form, just look at how well the “war on drugs” has progressed. And realize that no matter what lockdown strategies you support, be it levies or three strikes, none of them, none of them, will get you a single additional cent – and wasn’t that the point?
November 25th, 2009 at 9:41 am
My 78 doesn’t show me as upset at all. I clearly think you are being delusional. I’m not upset or full of ‘attitude’ about it though. It’s just if you present silly ideas about a future full of butterflies with everyone holding hands, I’m obviously going to have a wee giggle about it. And to the other bits, yada yada yada. For some reason, you haven’t been able to convince the government about these ‘alternatives’.
November 25th, 2009 at 10:54 am
SteelWolf, I think people have to go through a phase of thinking this is a religious war, that it’s amenable to strength of conviction and enough charisma for each on either side (?) to convert the opposition to the other’s belief system.
Indiana doesn’t yet realise that the p2pnet axis isn’t a Blefuscudian army intent on subjugating the Liliputian artists to their will such that they learn to crack their eggs in the ONE TRUE WAY.
We’re actually astronomers who’ve realised that not only does the Earth orbit the Sun, but the Sun isn’t even at the centre of the universe. In other words, the church is not only uninformed, it is exploiting the people and not only giving them nothing in return, but actually inhibiting their cultural and technological progress.
We’re saying: Abandon the church that is a parasite upon us! It may be comforting, but really all there is is just us: those of us who love art and those of us who love to produce it. The sooner artists and their audiences realise this, the sooner fans and artists can get back in bed and make beautiful music together.
Unless, of course, you really do get a kick out of giving up 99% of your earnings to your church. In which case the church is very much on your side.
November 25th, 2009 at 1:40 pm
Well, thank you very much for that Indiana
we are trying hard, and collectively, as a real political force, to be rational about all this.
I think I’m sure in saying that we regard it as essential that artists and creative people should have the opportunity to earn a reward (not a “right” or entitlement as such, but a fair opportunity just like anyone else has the opportunity to earn a reward from their talents).
And I think I’m also sure in saying that we recognise the opportunity that is offered to our society as a whole because it is now possible to distribute digital media infinitely, at no cost to the creator, to everyone who could use, enjoy, and benefit from that media.
Both elements are essential, creative work that earns revenue must reap the rewards of that, AND distribution that costs no-one anything must be possible to benefit us all.
And I believe that we can find a solution to both, and that the conversation here on a2f2a is a part of the journey towards that, and that the UK and international Pirate movement are also determined to be part of finding real and effective solutions that work for creative people, for ever-increasing participation (not just an artificial division between “artists” and “fans”), and for everyone’s freedom to communicate and share information, knowledge, and culture.
November 25th, 2009 at 7:19 pm
Crosbie, would it be awkward if I gave you a big internet hug?
November 26th, 2009 at 2:55 am
I can take it SteelWolf, go ahead, but be gentle – I’m worried about your wiry coat, tungsten talons, and razor blade teeth.
November 26th, 2009 at 12:14 pm
@everyone : I’m a bit confused because it’s pretty clear that you don’t understand What my ‘business model’ is. You are still talking about direct sales of CDs and mp3’s.
The business model is: streaming music which is compensated through our site revenues for independent artists. The site allows artists to sell their products and other products (e.g.: K-box gel audio, artists merch & music, used equipment, etc.) So, I’m not sure what part of our business model you are suggesting we change? So far, it’s working pretty well and it will hopefully be scalable as a model to help musicians/ artists. So, I’m not sure why people are saying I’m trying to get paid for things that are ‘free’ already. Our model is use/ attention model with upsell built into it. There are various other revenue streams involved. All geared towards giving artist’s tools to help promote their music with. That’s the Kerchoonz model (in beta) The model is also based upon individual artists being able to set their own prices for their stuff (be it physical or digital product), this avoids the ‘middle man’ etc.
It is not a model based upon giving ‘99%’ of earnings to the church in any case. It’s a model where a website community (Kerchoonz) attracts traffic via marketing & PR, the site in turn attracts sponsorship and advertising and rewards the ‘artistic’ people by ’sharing’ that income with those creative people.
November 26th, 2009 at 4:57 pm
@robert @Steelwolfe et al
I’ve not ‘turned against the p2p community’ as was suggested earlier in this thread. I was/am playing devils advocate a bit by pointing out that their does need to be a more convincing and compelling argument to propose to government other than the one’s that have been suggested so far. With legislation like 3-strikes we are essentially all being lumped into the same boat. This kind of government legislation is like the teacher who punishes the entire class because one group of pupils put thumb tacs or sticky glue on her chair.
Whether or not you feel more enlightened than me about the earth no longer being flat or the position of the Sun within the Universe actually doesn’t matter right now. (Remember, Galileo’s dialogue was banned. The pope only apologized in the 1990’s and the Vatican only recognised Galileo finally a couple of years ago.) The main difference is that in our situation, it’s everyone who is being ‘punished’ essentially (not just one ‘astronomer’ or in our case ‘internaut’).
I’m not being a ‘neo-Ludite’ here at all and the only reason I came to this forum was to address this subject of 3-strikes, the issues that are floating around about ‘net security’ and the personal ID. (In other words, I’m not here for you to give me more ideas about how to make money as an artist. I’ve been wearing my business cap the whole time.)
So, let’s play a game. I just can’t help but wonder what you would actually say if you were sitting in a room with Peter Mandelson. Imagine that he phoned the group of you tomorrow. What would you tell him, what kind of leverage would you have over the 3-strikes plan right now, and what would be the ‘deal’ that you propose.
Maybe you could say “Lord Mandelson, purely from an economic perspective, 3-strikes is a bad move because none of the money being spent will benefit artists anyway and the costs will be projected onto the public. It will only generate more problems within the creative industries. It will only widen the divide between creative people and their fans. etc. etc.”…
But after that, what else would you be able to say to him? If you say something like ‘music should be free and shared’, how do you think he would react? He will want to see a proposal that appears to be sensible, well constructed, perhaps create more jobs, make him look better, help stimulate the creative industries, etc. That’s his job as secretary of state for ‘Business’ in the UK. Otherwise, you could tell him that p2p is great and bittorrent is a wonderful distribution method. But, then what do you think he’d say? He would probably be like “um. Show me how it would help creative people economically”. From his point of view, if it doesn’t boost GDP or GNP, he’s probably not going to take a lot of interest in your plan. But, maybe you’ll have a good chat and some tea and crumpets while you’re there.
If there isn’t a truly workable p2p model, then other technologies or innovations that can be monetised will take the driving seat. It’s often been the case with technology that the ‘best’ or most efficient products don’t win out, it’s usually the products who were marketed more or marketed better that ‘win’. Think of VHS versus Betamax. (This is an example of why the typical reaction to it all from a lot of p2p users of saying we’ll use’dark nets’ and ‘VPN’s isn’t a very smooth move. That’s sorta where the governments and the labels would like you to go. They would like you to disapear… ‘out of sight, out of mind’ so to speak.) And although you may all be lobbying and sending letters out against Three-Strikes, it probably won’t penetrate unless your representatives come up with a serious business plan. (and I’m fairly sure that @Jon Barron from PPUK is fully aware of this.)
You can pretty much bet that your ‘enemies’ (the labels, RIAA et al) have been showing them ‘the numbers’ in order to rationalize putting 3-strikes into place. The dramatic turn-around by the FAC also doesn’t help your position. And to be honest with you, I’m sure the government would like any excuse to have this new legislation passed because it will mean more ‘control’ for them. They have a lot of other headaches to deal with on the web you know and we’ve already mentioned interpol, libel cases, issues concerning net anonymity, etc.
So, let’s play that game: Imagine that you were sitting next to lord Mandelson having this discussion, what would you say to convince him that 3-strikes is a bad move and what would you propose? That’s really what the project for the weekend should perhaps be? If you can truly find a way (as in the Mission Statement for a2f2a) then, we’d all be laughing and throwing a party.
November 26th, 2009 at 5:22 pm
Indiana, we’re talking about direct sales of recordings and performances of artists in concert and in studio. We’re not talking about sales of copies however, because we can make those ourselves for nothing.
No-one in the p2p community has anything against you selling anything you like as long as it’s yours to sell. So, if you can sell copies, streams, merchandise, promotions, etc. go for it. We’re right behind you.
So, we’re impressed that you can still sell copies and streams. Brilliant. It’s amazing what people will buy when they can easily make it themselves or get it for free if they’d only look for it. No worries. Half of business is being in the right place at the right time with the product the punter wants.
100% of the problem we’re here to address is unjust persecution of people for sharing and building upon the music they’ve purchased or been given. That’s all.
So, we’re saying artists can do business in many ways, some of which you demonstrate, but they DON’T need to sue, fine, prosecute, imprison, bankrupt, disconnect, or do anything nasty to their fans simply because they’re promoting the art they like, building upon it, and sometimes trying to make a living too.
But, I’ll point out to you that the number of artists on this planet currently selling studio recordings directly to their fans is miniscule. Artists have almost exclusively sold those recordings to labels.
NB selling a studio recording is a completely different transaction to the sale of a copy of that recording. Remember, the market for copies has ended.
November 26th, 2009 at 5:42 pm
How about “Lord Mandelson, your three strikes system will fail miserably, cutting off innocent people whom will vote any supporting party out, and produce massive debts for your country, well beyond the donations you receive from the ‘entertainment industry’.”
Said industry will not support you financially to try to keep them afloat via this Three Strikes plan. Said industry cannot see past their own nose for if they could, they’d realize that higher taxes and disconnecting people’s access to their music (both those that do and do not produce monetary gain) will mean.. less money for said industry. In turn they will find something new to cast blame upon.
Governments have no interest in controlling the internet or locking it down. They only have interest in keeping their dirty secrets or national security issues (such as changes to copyright) off of the internet. Why? Because people that have access to information will learn, if they learn they can think for themselves, and that means loss of control.
This is the real reason education in North America is viewed as a commodity and treated as such, which is easily understood when you compare to European countries and even countries in Asia.
The $1.8 trillion (estimated for 2010)industry is global media and entertainment, that includes just about everything from sports to games to music to news to information websites to multimedia software etc… which is a very broad industry. It also includes things NOT covered by the ‘Net, such as TV/Radio/sports games live/theatre etc..
It’s a fallacy to say the entertainment industry is worth $1.8 trillion and requires 3 strikes to protect it. Because in truth, you have to separate out the economic value to those items SPECIFIC to the Internet. Now you can include online sales, which will plummet by 3 strikes, but like Hollywood cares whether people purchase stuff online or not that isn’t theirs.
There’s a lot more at stake with 3 strikes but those pushing it will cleverly hide that fact. Only after the fact will it be clear who the real thieves are. Will it be too late? It’s never too late!
There are enough good people on the planet to pay back those who choose to abuse, though if we stop complaining and start working together by listening and understanding, we’d have a better chance at helping that payback become a reality sooner.
November 26th, 2009 at 8:06 pm
@robert Would you tell him all of that?
November 26th, 2009 at 8:20 pm
@Crosbie We don’t sell ’streams’ on Kerchoonz… They are ‘free’, people just listen (but, when they listen, we pay the artists from the advertising that’s generated on that page.) The artists sell their physical merchandise and they can also opt to either sell their mp3’s at whatever price (or give them away for ‘free’ and take a cut of the advertising displayed during the download).
Traditionally, labels fronted the cost of a studio recording if they’ve done a deal with the artist. If not, other investors would front that cost. There are actually quite a few artists who sell direct to their fans without a ‘label’. A lot of artists simply set up their own label, apply for bar codes for their products and ISRCs. There are thousands upon thousands of independent artists who do that.
November 27th, 2009 at 7:37 am
Indiana, ok so you don’t sell streams, you sell the streams’ listeners’ eyeballs to advertisers. Fine. My point was no-one’s complaining about what you’re selling.
The complaint is against the privileged persecuting the public.
As to artists selling their recordings directly to their fans I’d be impressed if you can list me five let alone five thousand. But, to make it easy for you, how about you list me one?
I found one a few days ago quite easily, but then I knew where to look.
November 27th, 2009 at 9:00 am
@Indiann #94:
What I would tell him is what I wrapped in quotes.
The other stuff is supporting arguments of what I would say. Given he’s a politician, he won’t listen to anything longer than 30 seconds, hence the quotes.
November 30th, 2009 at 9:01 am
@Crosbie have a look at CD baby, there are thousands of independent artists who sell their music directly to their fans everyday.
November 30th, 2009 at 9:23 am
@crosbie Here are 3,182 artists that are selling their ‘recordings’ to their fans: http://www.sellaband.com/ as another example. We have a similar integration that we are working on at kerchoonz which operates slightly differently.
Most of the artists in the world are not on labels. They are independent and sell directly to their fans (or they may have their own ‘label’ which is just them or their band, etc.) There are also many shop services that allow artists to keep 100% of their earnings from their downloads.
November 30th, 2009 at 10:49 am
Indiana, I know of not a single CD Baby artist selling their recordings to their fans. As far as I’m aware they’re all still selling copies. If you know of a single one selling recordings direct to their fans please let me know.
I thought you might bring up Sellaband. However, this is artists appealing to their fans to advance funds to pay a record label for a recording session. The fans don’t actually purchase the recording, so much as make an advance purchase of a CD (and a small share of any future CD sales). So, ‘close, but no cigar’.
See SellaBand – A New Middleman.
November 30th, 2009 at 11:42 am
Indiana,
Crosbie is making a distinction between a recording and a copy of a recording.
The pure recording itself is a work of art embodying a set of creative inputs, the ones that are familiar enough to us such as composition, arrangement, performance, production, engineering, programming, editing, and mastering.
The copy is a copy of the art. The art is the work itself and the processes involved in creating it.
Historically the record business grew up around selling distinct copies of the art. That way of doing business is no longer viable.
The idea that artists might find ways of funding the work in its purest form and forgetting about the copies is not only a good idea and one worth looking at, it might also be necessary as the new technology continues to diminish the price value of the copy.
November 30th, 2009 at 12:28 pm
@ Clark: Really well put.
“it might also be necessary as the new technology continues to diminish the price value of the copy.”
No ‘might’ about it.
Cheers!
November 30th, 2009 at 1:40 pm
Yes Indiana, as Jon also recognises, Clark has made a very good clarification that should help you understand the difference between selling copies and recordings.
An author used to sell their novel to a publisher. The publisher then sold copies of it to retailers for them to sell to readers. Given that copies now cost nothing, the author is going to need a new buyer of their novel. It’s pointless the author trying to sell copies if the publisher can’t. So I’m suggesting the author should instead try selling their novel directly to those who would like it written, i.e. those who like the author’s work, his readers.
Sellaband at least demonstrates that a musician’s fans have enough confidence to commission a recording, even if Sellaband doesn’t actually provide such a deal.
When you can’t sell copies of your music, all that’s left is to sell your music. Fortunately, the same fans who used to buy copies (rather than make their own) still want your music, so you can still sell them your music.
Indeed, given your fans can still make copies for nothing anyway, you might as well embrace this and restore their liberty to make copies (suspended in the 18th century).
November 30th, 2009 at 2:10 pm
@ Indiana 99
An example of an artist selling recordings or art instead of copies is The Motet, who turn the more accepted bp of using performance to sell copies on its head. This seems to work very well for artists that do not have a huge national following. The Motet gives its current album away as a free download at http://www.myspace.com/themotetmusic. They promote audience taping – you pay the ticket price you can take home a copy of the performance. This, and the fact that they present an astonishing performance, has made them a very successful draw.