“Mystery” surrounds the decision to uninvite the Featured Artists Coalition from a Digital Economy Bill dog-and-pony-show — sorry, debate — organised by The Telegraph and Virgin Media, says MusicWeek.
“A panel of digital experts, including UK Music chief executive Feargal Sharkey, shadow minister for culture Ed Vaizey and FAC acting chief Jeremy Silver, had been due to take part in an online discussion about the key issues raised by the legislation,” says the story.
ISP Virgin has just has just announced it’ll introduce DPI spyware that “analyses anonymous ISP traffic data” to supply information on the total volume of file-sharing” I posted yesterday.
UK Music? “No industy spin. No hidden agenda. The online music scene by the people in it.”and – it claims, with Vivendi Universal, EMI, Warner Music and Sony BMG’s BPI (British Phonographic Industry) , the Association of Independent Music, the British Academy of Composers and Songwriters, the MCPS-PRS Alliance, the Music Managers Forum, the Music Publishers Association and the Musicians Union and Phonographic Performance Limited (PPL) as members.
But why dump the FAC? After all, Jeremy Silver chaired the meeting which led to loud Allen-inspired Featured Artists Coalition support of the entertainment cartel Three Strikes anti-P2P, anti-file sharing, anti-consumer effort under which people said to be ‘illegal’ file sharers would be warned twice, and then thrown off the net.
“However as the debate, organized by The Telegraph and Virgin Media, neared it seems someone took exception to Silver’s involvement and his invitation was rescinded,” says MusicWeek.
Interestingly, bearing in mind the negatively weighted composition of the panel, “as many critics have pointed out, the key thrust of the bill appears to be safeguarding the interests of last century’s businesses rather than paving the way for the 21st century’s innovators to create the next generation of successful enterprises,” says Telegraph tech editor Claudine Beaumont in a piece introducing the Digital Economy Bill dog-and-pony-show — sorry, debate.
She went on >>>
One of the key sticking points is undoubtedly the policy that will see the broadband connections of suspected persistent illegal filesharers throttled or suspended. It would also give the secretary of state almost unheard of powers to move the goalposts of copyright laws and antipiracy legislation without any of the checks and balances traditionally provided by Parliament.
Internet service providers are fuming at the Bill’s proposed “watchdog” role for their industry, where they would be obliged to turn over lists of filesharing violations to copyright holders. ISPs have long argued that they should be seen as conduits of information in the same way as the Royal Mail is, and have been reluctant to police their networks in this way. And they won’t be taking on this role for free. Expect internet costs to rise as ISPs invest in new departments and personnel to oversee this web-monitoring exercise.
Despite the bluster of the Digital Britain report, and the extensive consultation with stakeholders to craft and shape legislation that struck the right balance between protection and innovation, few people seem happy with the Bill.
Meanwhile, FAC director Billy Bragg recently told Canadian politicians it’s time to start “really trying to reach out to the P2P community”.
They are “probably the most important aspect of how our industry will develop,” he said, going on:
“What they choose to do and how we work with them will I think define what the industry looks like.
“If we continue to go down the line of criminalising them I think technologically they’ll always be one step ahead a generation.”
Talking to the P2P community “is really crucial,” Bragg stressed, pointing out he’s the co-founder of a2f2a.com, set up to spark two-way dialogue between musicians and their fans.
Could it be the FAC as a whole is close to realising the error of its ways?
Definitely stay tuned.
Meanwhile, a second reading of the Digital Economy Bill is due to take place on December 2.
Jon Newton
November 27th, 2009 at 9:17 am
Is this a surprise?
Clearly, we need to agree to disagree and start working together.
NEW ideas are required and we need to gather evidence that they work.
We need to present this information to the powers that be, along with “vote yes, and we’ll never vote for you again.” Additionally, we need to prepare. Spread the word to the masses, the sheep watching Fox News, about what 3 strikes REALLY means! We need them to get off their couches and realize what is happening.
No government will do as they please when the majority of their population screams “NO.” They know what happens when they do.
We need to motivate the rest of the people, those whom are not artists or part of this awareness community. We need their support, their anger to write in, and call in, to every damn senator/MP and let them know how detrimental this will be, to their careers and to the rest of the world outside greedy labels.
There’s a hell of a lot more money to be lost by 3 strikes than “saved” by believing bullshit from labels.
November 27th, 2009 at 10:23 am
As I tried to enlighten Billy at the beginning of October ‘09, prior to the formation of a2f2a:
So, members of FAC, come to the light side! Don’t attempt to sit in limbo between two stools. The cartel will reject you for endorsing proposals to legalise non-commercial copying, and the more domestic independent artists and their fans will reject you if you insist on prosecuting them if they earn any money through sharing, remixing, covering, or any other artistic labour.
You can bet the labels won’t pay you a dime of royalties, and their legal budgets outgun yours considerably.
Here we are, your fans, your customers trying to persuade you to return to the original market, the natural one that existed prior to 1710 when copyright was enacted.
Those same 10,000 fans who will pay you to perform at a concert will pay you to perform in a recording studio (or your attic). All you have to do is stop suing your customers (or threatening to) and start letting them pay you for your work (copyleft).
The market for copies has ended. Sell us your art instead!
Release your audience from fear of prosecution. Copyleft your art.
One day people will look back and wonder why the heck artists were so doggone scared to do business with their ancient customers, and kept hanging around the labels that mistreated them and kept 99% of their earnings. It’s a mystery to me already.
November 27th, 2009 at 10:27 am
Oh, the quote came from FACing the Music.
November 27th, 2009 at 10:46 am
@Crosbie:
Perhaps you can better explain the “sell your art” part for the viewers?
Make short but powerful points and give an example. The points could summarily explain what you mean by “don’t sell copies, sell art.” Remember the people you’re trying to pitch this to understand selling copies of art, but not necessarily art itself.
November 27th, 2009 at 3:25 pm
I may get into trouble for this but here’s a quote from Matthew Good’s website (www.matthewgood.org) where he explains about problems with ‘fans’ feeling they are owed a signing after the show.
I feel it is relevant to the problems FAC members face when speaking out (or even non-FAC artists):
Matthew Good, http://www.matthewgood.org, 27/11/2009, 15:21 EST.
If more artists had this mantra, we’d have a stronger relationship between artists and fans and fans would be in even greater support of artists, and we’d have several solutions in the works to which we could pitch to governments.
Artists have now seen that being cut from the talks means the labels, as always, don’t value your opinion! We fans do!
November 28th, 2009 at 6:09 am
The Pirate Party didn’t get a chance to speak either. The Telegraph have been very fair and even handed with their coverage of us in the past, but they didn’t reply to my request for someone representing the multi-million strong file sharing community to take part in the debate.
It’s intersting to note that Ed Vaizey was supposed to be at the Digital Treasures conference in West Brom, where I was also speaking, but after making a very bland opening speech and waffling instead of answering my question about the Digital Economy bill, he left the building in a huge hurry, which disappointed a lot of the delegates who were very keen to press him on Conservative plans for copyright with respect of orphan works, which is a huge issue for the archive and museum industries.
November 29th, 2009 at 4:33 pm
hmm. It does say that the PPL and the Musician’s Union were part of the debate. It would have been good if the Pirate Party had been indluded, however, the musicians were represented since the MU alone represents something like 120k musicians and the PPL represents performing/ recording artists as well. However, hopefully with some pressure from the press (and perhaps by more letters to MPs expressing our anger towards this kind of bill and maybe letters to the editors of all the UK nationals from concerned individuals?) we can stamp this silly idea out!
November 30th, 2009 at 3:05 am
This is not necessarily bad news. Someone is clearly scared of having a proper debate with all sides represented. Excluding the Pirate Party is like keeping dog owners away from a debate on legislation to impound all dogs.
If they’re scared, that means they don’t believe they have a strong case – which of course they don’t. Nobody who knows anything about the technologies involved believes this plan can work, and nobody who cares about civil liberties wants the government to be given these extreme powers.
Since the supporters of this bill are scared of us airing our views, all we need to do to defeat them is keep on loudly airing our views.
November 30th, 2009 at 5:32 am
Robert, I’m continuously improving my explanations. Over the many years I’ve being trying to explain myself, I’m gradually getting a feel for better vs poorer explanations. However, it’s not easy explaining why the Earth orbits the Sun to those who’ve grown up understanding precisely the opposite, especially given the Sun still appears to orbit the Earth even while you explain the contrary. 99% of people end up thinking heliocentrists are either crazy and to be humoured, or so evil they should be burnt at the stake. :-/
November 30th, 2009 at 5:38 am
I should add Robert, that I will now attempt to respond to Indiana’s comment. I hope the explanation I provide meets with your approval.