As you may or may not have noticed, I haven’t made any comments or posts on this site for a while (did’ja miss me? 
). I just want to clarify that this was not because I had lost any incentive to participate (as someone appeared to speculate in a comment somewhere), but rather because of a number of unexpected obstacles I had to overcome in my personal life, which I won’t be talking about here. Suffice to say, just when I thought it was all over, a few more things got in the way.
This has, however, affected the Digest I had promised to try to produce every few weeks (my apologies, Jon). I will be putting one out shortly, as soon as I finish catching up on the posts I’ve missed and absorbing them for their substance value.
One thing I did notice while catching up was there still seems to be some confusion (both on a2f2a and on p2pnet) over Cory Doctorow’s statement >>>
There is no such thing as “streaming”.
I find it alarming that people have a problem understanding Cory’s point. For me, there’s nothing in the statement that can be argued with, as it is rooted in the very fundamentals of how computer networking works, and therefore, how “The Internet” works. The “alarming” part is, if these very fundamentals are being misunderstood, then designing a “solution” to the problems facing digital music will be nothing short of impossible!
Unfortunately, publishing Don Tapscott’s “rebuttal” hasn’t helped the situation. As far as this subject goes, Tapscott is possibly being deliberately clueless. Whatever the reason for his misinformation, we need to clarify some things before it gets too widely distorted…
The reality is, there simply ISN’T any such thing as “streaming” over the Internet. Streaming is something that is done by a BROADCAST medium, which the Internet just ISN’T. I seem to remember trying to make this point before, and for a very good reason. I wanted to discourage people from designing “solutions”, based on this false premise, that will only get shot down when they meet with reality.
People! Content is copied, downloaded and played by your own computer, regardless of what the content is and how you acquire it, end of story. This could very well be the one factor that ultimately distinguishes computer networking from “broadcasting”.
And, after the content is downloaded, no part of the source has been depleted. This reality further defeats any inappropriate analogies comparing the Internet (or digital music) to any kind of “utility” (like hydro), or “service”. Besides, your ISP has already supplied the “service”. Its measured in “bandwidth” units, and it’s considered “depletable”.
The closest thing to “streaming” you ever experience on the Internet is when your computer is allowed to download the content in a byte order that enables you play it as it downloads. This is still not streaming – it is simply opening a file before it completes the download. And, whether or not the file is allowed to stay resident on your computer after playing it, it has still been copied from someone else and downloaded. Having these files delete themselves after playing them doesn’t make the action a “stream”.
This whole idea of “streaming” is a carry-off from the broadcast world of television and radio, where in order to capture a copy for yourself, you have to intervene with another technology (i.e. tape or VCR) which “settles” on a product that is not in any way an ”equivalent” to the product that was broadcast. In broadcasting, the product is TRANSMITTED to the airwaves by the content provider during a certain time, making the product available to those who “tap into” or “tune into” the transmission at that time.
Streaming is the act of broadcasting something that one or more can witness in realtime. Technically, even “on-demand” programming offered by your cable company isn’t ”broadcasting” or “streaming”, as they’ve given you a way to “call up” content, from a digital server, that is formatted for your digital converter to send to your TV, when you ask for it.
Another false example of “streaming” would be a supposed “simulcast” over the Internet. Unlike television, where live video cams add the experience to the existing broadcast signal, the Internet simulcast needs a server to collect the video data and OFFER it to the Internet, via a webpage, where users still have to download the content and play it with their own plug-ins or players. Same as any other data transfer.
Another curious point that seems to come into this for some reason is some perceived “ownership” issue with the original content. If we’re talking about “streaming” over the internet (which we are), then this scenario has nothing to do with the “art” (which is the original content), as you are dealing with COPIES. “Collecting” and “owning” refers to controlling the digital file copies that people want to retain, as they want to be able to play the file when, where, and on the device they choose. You can’t “stream” music from your car player, or from any place/device with limited or no internet service. You can only play that which you’ve already downloaded. (Note the quotes on “stream” – I’m not advocating the use of the term.)
First, I see arguments for mechanisms (such as levies) to pay (compensate) for the circulation of these copies – a statement that is built around “ownership”. But then, I see a complete flip-flop on that in order to enable some misguided quest to classify “providing copies over the Internet” as some sort of “service” (for which I’m sure a “levy” would continue to be pushed). And, “providing copies” is really all anyone could hope to accomplish with any action performed on a computer network, because, THAT’S ALL IT DOES!
Send, receive, copy. That’s pretty well all the actions there are to report. The Internet allows us to send and receive packets primarily composed of copied data. Data copied at one end of the wire or the other. Every network packet has an origin and a specific destination. A true broadcast only has an origin, and doesn’t have or need a destination. (That is the nature of broadcasting.)
With a computer network, packets need to be reassembled with other packets to form a product that still depends on other equipment (the destination computer) and processes (the applications on the destination computer applied by a human) to use the product. Broadcasting is performed independently at the origin (the broadcaster), often without any other dependent processes or equipment, and the product is readily available, regardless of whether or not everyone that can access it is using it.
I could go on and on.
Just because you WANT really badly for something to be true, in order to suit a proposed business model, isn’t enough to actually MAKE it true. Instead of trying to “rebuild” all the old ideas so that they (appear to) fit the new environment, people should be simply moving on, and building on the realities of the new environment.
The Internet is not a radio or TV network, and you cannot convert it to either one. It is not a “broadcast medium” of any kind. The quicker everyone wraps their heads around this and accepts the fact, the quicker the solutions to the current problems will surface.
Devil’s Advocate – a2f2a digest editor 
December 7th, 2009 at 1:55 pm
” Just because you WANT really badly for something to be true, in order to suit a proposed business model, isn’t enough to actually MAKE it true. Instead of trying to “rebuild” all the old ideas so that they (appear to) fit the new environment, people should be simply moving on, and building on the realities of the new environment. ”
Nice to see you back posting again. You have this great ability to say what I am thinking much better than I ever could. That statement of yours is the best explanation of everything that has been happening here. Desperately trying to force something to be true that can never be true.
That and a lot of cognitive dissonance, some of it almost seeming intentional, making this statement of yours ..
” As far as this subject goes, Tapscott is possibly being deliberately clueless. ”
an obvious symptom of a VERY large problem, and why no consensus seems to be forthcoming.
I hope, as always, that you are well.
December 7th, 2009 at 1:56 pm
Thank you DA!
I tried hard to explain that already in a previous thread. I’m certain most P2P folks understood it, but someone else didn’t.
December 7th, 2009 at 1:59 pm
PS.
Jon has my RL e-mail, and you are always welcome to use it if you ever wish to. The goal of A2F2A is a worthy one, however, of late, the apparent impossibility of a real ‘coming together’ is beginning to become rather depressing.
December 7th, 2009 at 2:10 pm
“…I’m certain most P2P folks understood it, but someone else didn’t.”
Oh, I might know who that “someone else” is.
But, I did notice a few others, here and over a p2pnet, still showing symptoms of “falsibus broadcastitus”. I’m not sure it’s easily cured with a simple clue-bat. Might take evolution.
December 7th, 2009 at 2:35 pm
@Dredd:
“…the apparent impossibility of a real ‘coming together’…”
We all get disgruntled, and I’m certainly no stranger to that. But, I’m still trying to keep in mind how young this whole thing really is, and how many “voices that matter” we’re actually dealing with.
The more artists and related professionals that enter into the discussion, the more ideas we’ll see that might contribute to a plausible “concept” that could even survive the customary “first-round hole picking” some other ideas have failed to.
It really only takes one, solid, workable concept to get hands shakin’ and hatchets buried. And, if and when that should happen, people will start to see who their enemies aren’t, and much more time will be spent on straightening out the details, rather than arguing about what doesn’t work and who’s to blame for that.
While it may be true that we don’t seem to have a vast horde of artists fighting for any attention here, and that we really do NEED their interest to actually accomplish something, I would also remind people that wounds (whether real or imagined) take time to heal, and that not all those who want to speak are in any workable position to do so. And, we can’t blame those who are genuinely “stuck” behind the watchful eye of their paymasters – some “mistakes” only show up as mistakes down the line.
Just like we are used to having to “behave correctly” for our employers, in order to stay employed long enough to find better employers, so must some artists. This situation will not self-correct overnight.
Chin up!
December 7th, 2009 at 2:56 pm
@Dredd:
(Addendum)
Another factor that I knew had to come into play is the increasing number of artists getting fed up with the current model, such as the class action Jon posted about on p2pnet…
http://p2pnet.multibox.be/story/32160
The more this stuff piles up, the more artists will be looking to “think outside the box”.
December 7th, 2009 at 4:48 pm
I’m not at all surprised at the incredible amount of ignorance out there regarding computers, the net, and how they function. I had a boss who didn’t understand what I meant when I said “highlight this with the mouse”, I had to walk her through that. It wouldn’t shock me if there were people who thought Walmart created the internet so they could sell more stuff. There are people who don’t even know what a hard drive is(My ex boss called it “the brain”), so yeah, they think streaming is the same thing as watching TV. Devil did as good a job as can be done to stomp on that, but don’t be surprised if there are still people who still won’t get it after reading his post.
December 7th, 2009 at 5:23 pm
I think that the point of ‘ownership’ has been missed out in this rebuttle. A public license for websites for use and/ or a levy for a service doesn’t imply ownership of music by the public. The public only owned the plastic or the vinyl in the past. They never ‘owned’ the music or the film. Music is and has always been a ’service’ which has always been ‘intangible’ in a sense. Similar to going to the doctor for advice. The reason why the ISPs will likely be taxed is because they are the one’s already providing the service/ access.
December 7th, 2009 at 8:47 pm
“First, I see arguments for mechanisms (such as levies) to pay (compensate) for the circulation of these copies – a statement that is built around “ownership”. But then, I see a complete flip-flop on that in order to enable some misguided quest to classify “providing copies over the Internet” as some sort of “service” (for which I’m sure a “levy” would continue to be pushed). And, “providing copies” is really all anyone could hope to accomplish with any action performed on a computer network, because, THAT’S ALL IT DOES!”
It’s all it needs to do. This is the essence of copyright. An order to protect the exploit of individuals regardless of whether the world is analog or digital. If you think digital but act analog, it will at least always imply the human touch. If you could imagine that you were to apply some of the suggested arguments to whether or not we actually ‘need’ humans anymore (at some point in the future) since robots could actually replace our very existence much more efficiently and without the emotion… well, how would you proceed? It’s fine to think digitally. You can define things about broadcast and it’s true definition until the cows come home. However, the basic funcion is really only “on” or “off”. They are both easy to turn. I can flip the switch “on” or “off”. Or just as easily “play” or “stop”. Broadcast is only relevant when you make that “on” or “off” choice. It applies to everything. Wake or sleep. Stream or download. You can use digital arguments and it will be fairly easy for artists, programmers, entrepreneurs, or individuals to understand your digital realm of thinking, however, you will always need to bear in mind the human element and unless you are looking for a droid future, you will not be able to replace or neglect that human (analog) aspect of thinking. It’s not ‘ownership’, in most cases it’s about ‘use’. We’ve been evolving into ta service oriented culture in the western world for these past few decades. It’s just something that I believe should be thought about and considered no matter how you draw the definitions of ‘broadcast’. If you decide to be literal, then, in reality, the only sense of that word would be a megaphone or microphone in a big crowd where nobody has their fingers in their ears or has their eyes closed. It is just as relevant as haben oder sein.
December 7th, 2009 at 8:59 pm
@Indiana:
1. I never said a levy implied ownership by the PUBLIC.
What I said was…
It should have been fairly clear I was referring to the STATEMENT being founded on the concept of “ownership compensation”. Such ownership could only be that of the RIGHTS HOLDERS. I’m not even going to ask how you got “public” from that.
2. Let’s sort out some of the faulty language that keeps getting thrown around here:
- A “service” is contracted labour, which most commonly produces no actual product.
- “Music” is both an art form and a product of that art – NOT a service. The only time music can be a service is when artists are directly paid to create the product or mix/modify/repurpose another, in which case they would usually walk away without any further claim or right, anyway.
- The price of a doctor’s advice is covered by the paid appointment time. The financial transaction is ultimately between the patient (customer) and the doctor (contractor).
As to providing a “service”, the doctor qualifies, while the CURRENT model of musician doesn’t. So, I agree that music as a service IS “intangible”, as you say, from the CUSTOMERS’ perspective.
Notice I said “CURRENT model of musician”. Should society ever have a way to contract the musicians directly for what they want to hear, that business model might very well be classed as “service-based”.
I must say though, that in this ficticious model, no further “rights” or “expectations of revenue” would be applicable, as the contract for this “service” would be finished at the point of sale – ‘cuz you see, there is no place for a levy in a true “service” transaction.
Still think what you do is a service?
3. There nothing “likely” about ISPs or anyone else being taxed to fund music. I’ve addressed you on the many angles of this one, ad infinitum.
December 7th, 2009 at 10:40 pm
” The public only owned the plastic or the vinyl in the past. They never ‘owned’ the music or the film. ”
So we can expect commercials advertising DVD’s and CD’s to stop saying things like ‘own YOUR’s today’ or ‘Buy YOUR’s now’ any day , right ?
December 8th, 2009 at 5:34 am
Exactly, you are basing it upon ‘ownership compensation’ rather than ’service’. A service isn’t ‘contracted labor’. The problem you seem to be facing is that you are trying to think and act digital rather than thinking digital, but acting analog (human). A library is a service, for example. Music is a service. There is not much different (from an analog point of view) between google as an indexer and the old library card system of indexing except that one is digital. Accessing music, film, news, media, etc is a service. The content is being provided. Your argument states that the price of a doctor’s advice is covered by the paid appointment time, but, that isn’t true at all. The price of a doctor is paid for by the NHS here in this country (which is paid for by the tax payer) and his work is a ’service’. So is is the librarian’s ’service’, the fireman’s ’service’, the police man, the politician, etc.
December 8th, 2009 at 5:59 am
DA..I made a shortcut in my Finder for the cache where Grooveshark files come in…. and it ’streamed’ full mp3s! You are right, it downloaded them! But shortly after the ‘cache and carry’ post on Jon’s site, it stopped working…maybe something changed..bits of files kept coming and going…I tried another site…captured partial files…then they got deleted or got move to..? I have no idea…(not being deliberately clueless, btw) Point is, for most clueless people, it’s easier to video tape a broadcast than to capture a stream…and the practical reality is what’s relevant for the business models that are going to eventually give us our answers.
December 8th, 2009 at 7:16 am
@Dredsnik “buy now”? It’s a piece of plastic that you buy. On the piece of plastic is a copy notice (generally around the edge). When you buy music, you enter into that agreement. (same with the T&C’s of a video game console). My point being, you were buying a piece of plastic that let you access the service (music) you didn’t ‘own’ the music.
December 8th, 2009 at 9:22 am
” It’s a piece of plastic that you buy ”
Yes .. I know that.
You know that, and your pals in the industry know that.
So that’s why they can’t be sued for falsely claiming you own your copy. They ‘imply’ it, let the watcher of the ad draw their own conclusion of ‘ownership’ , so technically they are telling the truth, but the end result is still deceptive, that’s my point. I think you know that.
Now, go take a walk someplace where the wealthy don’t dwell, and start asking regular people what they think they own when they buy that piece of plastic. You know exactly what answer you will get.
Nearly all regular joe consumer think they OWN there copy, and can do what they want with the copy they feel they own. Let me be clearer.
When are the members of the RIAA and MPAA going to stop implying in television and radio ads that people are going to OWN their copy ? When are they going to stop hiding that information in a tiny disclaimer ‘generally around the edge’ that people without exceptional eyesight can’t read.
It’s deliberately deceptive.
You know it.
December 8th, 2009 at 9:30 am
” Still think what you do is a service? ”
Give it up DA.
She will never perceive anything other than how she wants to see it.
In my previous example she already demonstrates that being knowingly deceptive is perfectly OK. This is what I mean when I say no middle ground will ever be reached. There are no open minds on their side. Only a need to tell us why what is being done to customers and fans is perfectly ok, no matter how sneaky. If a hidden disclaimer and deliberately misleading ads aren’t sneaky than I really don’t know what is. I am very satisfied on my crusade to be certain that no one I know ever purchases anything with Indiana Gregg on it.
December 8th, 2009 at 10:19 am
Use”cough cough cough” neCOUGH!!t
December 8th, 2009 at 11:07 am
Indiana, when you buy a book you own the words as much as you own the paper. Similarly, when you buy a CD you own the information representing a copy of the original recording as much as you own the acetate.
All that interferes with a purchaser’s intellectual and material property is the 18th century privilege of copyright, which (until it expires after a hundred or so years) enables the holder of that privilege to sue anyone they find making unauthorised copies, broadcasts or performances of the covered work.
However, aside from that pernicious irritant, the ownership of a CD and the information it represents is clear – it is wholly the purchaser’s property.
December 8th, 2009 at 2:04 pm
The thing that gets me about “ownership”, when mentioned in this “streaming versus downloading” argument, is that it simply DOESN’T MATTER to the argument itself.
As long as a copy is involved, it doesn’t matter where it comes from and who “owns” it. It’s the COPY that becomes the problem.
Even if “streaming” was completely possible (which it ISN’T!), the fact of the matter is, it’s still just another way of distributing COPIES, where the format is even less secure than a DRMed movie on a DVD. And, whenever copies are being distributed (whether “intentional” or not), there will always be rights holders out there screaming for compensation or for the site to be shut down, as soon as they realize people can circumvent the “protection”.
The model will always fail.
Think about it. What’s the difference between pirating the material from a CD and pirating the material from a “streaming” site??
And, if it’s supposed to be “illegal” to copy and distribute the tracks, then why would it suddenly be “legal” to commercially offer the MP3 version (a DIFFERENT “PRODUCT”!), for profit, without acquiring the licenses from all the artists?? (Seems to be a very similar principle to the one that sparked the class-action against the CRIA, doesn’t it?)
December 8th, 2009 at 2:16 pm
@Mysteron:
“But shortly after the ‘cache and carry’ post on Jon’s site, it stopped working…”
I doubt it would have anything to do with Jon’s article, if that’s what you’re thinking.
I’m not going to get into “Pirating 101″ here, but the fact remains that your computer stores the MP3s, in their entirety, and they work, as is, until they “expire” (which is what is supposed to miraculously classify the service as a “stream”).
Before these files “expire”, they can be pirated in a number of ways, quite easily, using a variety of common tools which most users already have or some they can acquire for free.
Since they CAN be pirated, “streaming” cannot really be any alternative business model. It’s just another source for copies.
December 8th, 2009 at 2:45 pm
DA, the advantage of ’streaming’ over ’sharing/uploading’ is that a compulsory license fee is available instead of the need to obtain a voluntary license. Of course, if you have neither license then you’re still at risk of litigation, in which case sharing is more efficient.
The law is an ass. It doesn’t matter how technologically ridiculous copyright is, nor how socially and culturally harmful it is, the law is determined by corporate lobbyists and their representative government. Until that is, there’s a popular uprising against it.
There are two obvious solutions:
1) Educate the public as to why copyright is unethical and should be abolished.
2) Demonstrate to the public the superiority of doing without copyright.
The first is unstoppable. The publishing corporations cannot help themselves in accelerating it.
The second is being achieved in the software industry by the FSF, but in the rest of the arts it’s patchy…
December 8th, 2009 at 2:50 pm
@dresdnik I don’t see how you think it is being knowingly deceptive when every cd and sleeve and nearly every vinyl sold in the past always had a ‘c’ and ‘p’ statement (in two places usually on every record). That’s silly to think that people don’t know that they don’t own the music. They have always owned a ‘copy’.
The whole point of ‘ownership’ means that by having that ownership, you would have a ‘right’ to distribute it (if it were yours in the first place). You don’t own, therefore, you don’t have the right to distribute the copies. That’s the reason why the copyright people are so up in arms. However, If music is deemed a service, however, it’s a way to get around that problem altogether and obliterate the need for those kinds of constraints. There is no difference between a stream and a download except that one takes more space on your hard drive. It’s a question, however, of some people’s interpretation of ‘ownership’.
December 8th, 2009 at 3:23 pm
“The problem you seem to be facing is that you are trying to think and act digital rather than thinking digital, but acting analog (human).”
This is simply curious. But it might “explain a lot”.
Humans can’t THINK or ACT “in digital”. Digital is simply a method of storing and processing data as nothing but “1s and 0s”. Because digital devices are basically following instructions, they can’t be said to “think”.
And “analog” is not a mode of thinking or acting, either.
Analog information is acquired by broadcasts*. Humans get all their information from the streams* entering their senses. (*Note the lack of quotes around the words “streams” and “broadcasts”!) But, what they do with that information is PROCESS it in a way that competely leaves the realm of terms like “analog” and “digital”. Because “thinking” is not covered by those terms, and humans are the only part of this story that actually THINK! (well, most of the time!)
For those who still think the Internet is a “broadcast medium”, there’s another nail in your coffin. In case you didn’t catch that, I’ve just stated broadcasting is an ANALOG mode of information exchange. Since all computers and the avenues their information travels use the DIGITAL method, the “broadcast” model is broken, as far as I’m concerned.
December 8th, 2009 at 4:01 pm
Language and Terminology are very important…
“A library is a service, for example.”
A library is a BUILDING, housing a variety of services, mostly paid for by tax dollars. Every one of those services is one that someone is approaching the library to find, and enabled by contracted labour. (Librarian included.)
_____________________________________
“Your argument states that the price of a doctor’s advice is covered by the paid appointment time, but, that isn’t true at all. The price of a doctor is paid for by the NHS here in this country (which is paid for by the tax payer) and his work is a ’service’. So is is the librarian’s ’service’, the fireman’s ’service’, the police man, the politician, etc.”
So, tax dollars pay all the salaries involved. How does that change the fact the doctor’s advice is covered by the appointment time?? And just how does that change the “service” designation on any of them??
I certainly never implied that it would matter HOW the customers’ money gets to them, in order to qualify as a service, which they certainly do.
_____________________________________
“Music is a service.”
Music is an art form and a product.
OFFERING music, on request or demand, could be a service.
COMPOSING music, on request or demand, could be a service.
The mere EXISTENCE of music is NOT a service in itself.
Someone has to WANT it, in some way or another, and be willing to pay for it, to create a “service”.
_____________________________________
“Accessing music, film, news, media, etc is a service. The content is being provided.”
This one’s pretty vague, and I don’t know why it’s being said, or what it has to do with the price of eggs.
Who is accessing what? Who is providing what, and to whom? Currently, “access to music, film, news, etc.” is sort of under fire right now, no?!
December 8th, 2009 at 4:59 pm
Streaming is Broadcasting.
Broadcasts are analog.
The Internet is digital.
End of Story.
December 8th, 2009 at 6:19 pm
Grief. I get the impression that you are more interested in arguing than actually understanding. Thinking digital and presenting something in a more analog way or acting upon things in an analog manner is figurative obviously. Music, from my point of view, is a service from head to foot because the very obvious action of ‘play’ and ’stop’, ‘off’ or ‘on’. The format is not important, it’s the substance that the listener accesses that is relevant. Whether digital or analog it’s the same music (may sound better analog, depending upon your preference, however, essentially, it’s the same.) As far as I’m concerned, a library is not a building. If that were the case, my home would be a building. A library is a collection of books that can be borrowed as a service to the public. Obviously, you know that it’s not a ‘building’. The reason why I’m pointing this out in the ’streaming’ versus ‘downloading’ debate here is that in my opinion, it doesn’t really matter how music is accessed. I get the same result either way. It’s a matter of preference. Whether streamed or downloaded or bought on plastic, the ‘ownership’ issue is likewise still the same. For the online world, the easiest way to deal with the issue is to define access to music as a service. Likewise, the easiest way to deal with it in the sense of copyright, would be to create some form of public license scenario. Otherwise, there will always be this moral and legal issue about whether or not there is a ‘right’ to copy or not. If there isn’t a solution, it’s going to be this tyranical acta or 3-strikes type of scenario. Surely there must be a way of bypassing this. You will never get hundreds of thousands of musicians, songwriters, etc to agree to give up their copyright (for example) and there is an obvious lobby towards ‘control’ of media on the net (e.g. 3-strikes). So, in my opinion, the ‘extreme’ way is only putting nails into your palms. In my mind, it would make more sense to take strategic baby steps rather than continually arguing the same points amongst yourselves over and over again. It really depends upon whether you are hoping to be solution driven or simply argumentative for the sake of commaraderie amongst your peers here.
December 8th, 2009 at 6:20 pm
correction (my home would be a ‘library’)
December 8th, 2009 at 6:29 pm
Er…..sorry guys, but why is this important?
December 8th, 2009 at 7:21 pm
Hi, Billy!
Welcome back.
I’ll start by first asking you a question to see how far we have to take it to get the answer you need:
Why is what important?
December 8th, 2009 at 7:34 pm
I’m sure Devil’s answer will be better than mine, but I’ll put in my two cents anyway. There seem to be some people who want to have a streaming vs media(IE CD’s, mp3’s saved on hard drive or mp3 player, ect)debate. The problem is the streaming side showed up to the debate with an empty gun, this discussion is merely explaining to them why their gun won’t shoot. A lot of the debate here is about technology and it’s use, for the discussion to be at least somewhat fruitful at least a BASIC understanding of how that technology works is helpful.
December 8th, 2009 at 7:53 pm
It’s actually not important. There seems to be an issue about definitions of the web being a non-broadcast medium and that streaming, by definition, doesn’t exist. It’s a back log of various arguments carried over from earlier debates and ‘recurrent’ motifs. It’s abstract to the more motivating agenda of finding a reasonable solution (IMO)
December 8th, 2009 at 10:33 pm
@Billy:
Yeah, Monkey’s done pretty good at an “abridged” version of the whole thing, really.
Basically, there are those that would have us believe (if we didn’t know better already) that if music was offered through a service that allowed you to listen to a “streamed” MP3 (not possess or acquire it) that “expired” after its use, this would be a viable model that would satisfy all.
The trouble with the concept of “streaming” is pretty much covered in all the posts we’ve made on it, however, in a nutshell, there’s a certain truth that is completely ignored by this idea that was pointed out by Cory Doctorow – there’s no such thing as “streaming” on the Internet, nor can there ever be, given the context of a digital computer networking system.
Not that it took Cory to bring this up, as many of us here already understood this. I’ve attempted to simplify the explanation as to why it’s a fact that you can’t stream over the Internet goes like this:
______________________________
Streaming is Broadcasting.
Broadcasts are analog.
The Internet is digital.
End of Story.
______________________________
The only actions the Internet facilitates involves transmitting and receiving packets of copied data, therefore every “stream” could only be a download anyway.
Another reason why the model would ultimately fail anyway is the fact that such a format is easily circumvented, bringing to light all the problems associated with any other proposed “legalized download site”.
There’s much, much more to this, but I won’t bore you with the rest of the details, as I’m sure you’ll catch up on what you want to. Suffice it to say, the discussion this caused has dredged up other really curious misunderstandings certain people have about the Internet, digital technology, and the language that simply shouldn’t be used when talking about much of it.
By the looks of it, it’s going to take EVOLUTION to cure much of these misconceptions.
December 8th, 2009 at 11:21 pm
By the looks of it, only Indiana thinks this stuff has no importance in the Big Picture.
The fact is, Indy, understanding this stuff is not only PARAMOUNT to forming a viable solution, its paramount to effectively discussing the potential details in order to reach that solution!
If you don’t know the difference between “broadcast” and “download”, then NATURALLY you’d have no idea as to why trying to sell a solution based on “streaming” is a waste of everyone’s time.
If you don’t know the difference between “product” and “service”, then NATURALLY you’d have no idea why you can’t do things like put sales tax on a service, or offer a product as a service.
If you don’t understand the processes you propose to affect, create, eliminate, ignore, etc., why would propose anything??
If you don’t see why the application of language or contexts used is important to this stuff, then NATURALLY you’re going to get into trouble using your own “version”.
And, just as importantly, if you’re going to keep thumbing your nose at any of us for pointing it all out, and dismissing it as some “geek-centric elitist issue” that’s distracting the conversation away from the agenda, you’re missing the point completely.
You talk about some of us needing to be more flexible, yet you’ve been the most stubborn and clue-resistant to pretty well everything we’ve said.
The more I explain, the less you appear to see. There’s only 3 reasons why that would happen. You’re either incredibly naive, or you’re on a personal agenda that doesn’t care about the facts that would interfere with it, or both.
It’s as if you’re here to derail these discussions.
December 9th, 2009 at 8:01 am
yes, but, don’t you think we’re past all that? It’s a complete reiteration of stuff that has been discussed over and over again. I think that people have to get past this conceptual thinking about music. Music hasn’t changed. It’s still combinations of notes, rhythms, chords and melodies. It was never a ‘product’ except when it has been ‘packaged’ in the past. But, people were indeed never in a position of ‘ownership’ of the music. Nobody is selling solutions based upon streaming. These new services that have been popping up are based upon easy access, reliability, and the consumer being able to access and ‘listen’ to reliable files. I don’t see how this is ‘derailing’ a discusion pointing out what everyone seems all too willing to overlook.
If you reread the mission statement here for the a2f2a:
* Help each community better understand the other;
* Help find a practical and workable system which offers artists fair remuneration in exchange for access to material by fans; and
* Help set the agenda for discussions about the role P2P can play within the emergent digital record industry.
“Help set the agenda for discussions about the role p2p can play within the emergent digital record industry”
At the end of the arguments here, no matter what anyone says about definitions, various products or services, the basic essence is that music is something people listen to. When you don’t push ‘play’ the music is just a file. “The more I explain the less you appear to see” I feel exactly the same.
December 9th, 2009 at 8:15 am
“understanding this stuff is Paramount”. DA I believe We all do ‘understand it’. The problem is that rehashing everything a million times doesn’t bring anyone closer to effective solutions that will stand up against what is going on at the moment. In the past, every time someone bought a CD or a piece of vinyl, the ‘music’ that was on those formats was only a COPY. Just because it’s still only a COPY, doesn’t mean that every musician in the world should just fall over and die because now they would be expected to sell their recordings for thousands of pounds or dollars. It’s not because you ‘can’ do something that it makes it a ‘right’. The only way to help introduce making the distribution of copies deemed ‘legal’ or morally acceptable is to come up with a solution that does the ‘fair compensation’ bit in the ‘mission statement’. Again, there needs to be a more strategic approach. In the meanwhile, you have these huge corporation pushing their weight looking to gain more and more control.
As far as streaming being an only ‘analog’ term. Here is the wiki definition of this newly evolved use of the word ’streaming’as it applies as a ‘delivery method’:
Streaming media are multimedia that are constantly received by, and normally presented to, an end-user while being delivered by a streaming provider (the term “presented” is used in this article in a general sense that includes audio or video playback). The name refers to the delivery method of the medium rather than to the medium itself. The distinction is usually applied to media that are distributed over telecommunications networks, as most other delivery systems are either inherently streaming (e.g., radio, television) or inherently non-streaming (e.g., books, video cassettes, audio CDs). The verb ‘to stream’ is also derived from this term, meaning to deliver media in this manner. Internet television is a commonly streamed media.
December 9th, 2009 at 8:28 am
e.g.: we all know that streams and downloads are the same thing. We’ve been arguing with the record industry about it for about 5 years. The record industry still wants 50p for a download and 1p for a stream. In my mind, there has never been any difference between the two. It’s only the method of delivery that is. It’s similar to the old ‘format’ issue of cassette versus cd in their minds.
December 9th, 2009 at 8:47 am
@Indianna #34:
He gets it. But he’s trying to get artists, well mainly you, to understand how the Internet works. It’s like someone who doesn’t fully know the lingo misusing it, demonstrating a lack of understanding the the fundamentals and it drives people nuts.
If an electrician were wiring up a control system in an industrial plant and he said “ground, neutral, same thing” he’s be in for it from the engineers (like myself) or technologists (also like myself) or even electricians who know better.
You can’t make such a crazy statement because it has ramifications that can cause unexpected results.
That’s what DA is trying to explain to you. As Monkey and DA have said, websites/music/pictures/whatever, they are all files! Files that reside on some computer somewhere and they are copied, piece by piece, to your computer and that’s how you view/listen/watch it.
Oh, while at the generation station neutral is grounded, it is not necessarily when it arrives at your home. Ideally there should be no potential difference (voltage) between neutral and ground (Earth ground), but there can be. That’s why in an industrial setting with automation, you have to keep things solid and understood. Floating neutrals/grounds lead to potential differences between points you would not expect to have potential differences. This will cause havoc for the electronics, as they rely on voltage levels with respect to specific points and when you have floating values, you have unpredictable results. This is why every system when installed, if inspected, is properly grounded (both chassis/housing, and wiring) to solid Earth ground. It’s also why neutral is wired directly to the panel, as is the live.
We don’t take chances with floating neutrals, which can occur due to mutual inductance on the transmission lines (which is why you see them cross every so often, to cancel that out) or damaged transformers.
You also have to be extremely cautious with isolation transformers, without a common neutral, my Lord, if someone not paying attention thinks the neutral and ground are at the same potential and touches it without testing it first, they are dead (recall your power generation is with respect to Earth ground at the station, ideally neutral should be at the same potential but don’t EVER take risks!).
You see Indianna, the details DO matter!
Your suggested models as a means of going forward require an understanding of the basics of how the Internet works!
Rest assured the ISP’s understand it, and they know you most likely don’t, and they will shaft you artists any way they can. However, if you artists, or some of you at least, can grasp the fundamentals, you won’t be shafted! Think of the mechanic trying to replace your transmission when you really need a tune-up to remove the ‘noise’, if you knew something about the car you drove you wouldn’t be shafted.
December 9th, 2009 at 9:03 am
@Indianna,
In a pre-emptive explanation, do not take the analogy out of context by saying “details matter when lives are at stake” because that was not the point! The point was details matter period!
@35/36, DA keeps explaining to you the fundamentals because any solution you suggest shows you don’t understand. Kinda like “yeah yeah, I get it, ground/neutral same potential at the generation plant, no problem. So why doesn’t the machine work as expected?”
December 9th, 2009 at 10:23 am
all I’ve been saying is that a file is a file is a file is a file. It doesn’t matter if it is worded to be a ’stream’ or worded to be a ‘download’ or if it’s on plastic. It’s the same file. I don’t see how that is some kind of ‘crazy’ idea.
December 9th, 2009 at 10:42 am
It’s pretty basic. In the eyes of the recording and film industry ‘piracy’ is being used as a newly defined term. They are calling you ‘pirates’ even though you are not reselling anything. (True or false?)
The real new term for piracy might rather be something like what happens when a website generates income through the traffic it produces when people are looking for the ‘files’ that are being searched for. But, even that isn’t a ‘direct pirate sale’ because no money is exchanging hands. It’s simply that the site generates advertising revenue in the exchange for using other people’s copies (regardless of where the copies came from. For example, it could be myspace who is selling advertisements against so-called ’streams’ or any other site using that type of model for ‘downloads’.) It could be facebook’s ’share’ or RSS etc. A file is a file is a file. End of. It’s all the same thing. Just slightly different delivery.
How to circumvent this and offer renumeration would be to have a public use scenario for websites who use music, film, and any creative ‘copyright’ whereby the website ’shares’ the advertising revenue. Then, it could be ‘free’ for everyone and still help the renumeration of creators. The problem is that for all music to be considered, the labels will need to stop charging ridiculous rates for the use of their files whether they think that a so-called ’stream’ is less valuable than a file stored on your hard-drive, ipod or wherever. This type of scenario would mean that music would shift more towards a ’service’ type scenario (which is more than likely what Don was suggesting in his debate with Cory). Cory was saying that ‘collectors like to own things’ in that original article. However, music isn’t the type of ‘thing’ that people ‘own’ anyway. Obviously, since you would like to be able to play music in a cave, airplane, or coal mine, the public use license scenario would clear up that problem and deem the stream vs download issue obsolete. The whole problem disappears in one full swoop. And since websites do generate income through driving traffic to work that they didn’t create themselves, I don’t see where the problem lies. This would clear up the whole ordeal. Labels need to stop trying to control and start liberating. Websites need to stop being greedy and start sharing back with the creative people. In my mind, this makes sense and keeps everything fairly clean and simple. Basically, copyright would disappear except for in commercial use situations (websites fall under the commercial use scenario more often than not.)
December 9th, 2009 at 1:11 pm
DA,
Why is it important that we all agree with you that
Streaming is Broadcasting.
Broadcasts are analog.
The Internet is digital.
End of Story.
December 9th, 2009 at 2:03 pm
@Billy:
Well first off, it’s a reality (not something that simply came out of MY head), and it is important in general that people understand where reality ends and myth begins.
As to the importance it plays here, it means that any proposed solutions that would depend on “streaming” over the Internet being an actual delivery mechanism, based on the idea that the user can’t “own” the file, would only be a red herring.
It’s not important to ME, per se, if anyone “believes” me on this, but it IS an ultimate point of failure that simply can’t be ignored, when talking about WORKING solutions.
There was also a very important idea I was trying to get across with this kind of stuff – people really need to start better understanding this technology they’ve now been enveloping their world in for the last decade.
For one thing, they really should know what they’re paying for and where the scams are. At least, they should know what it can and can’t do, and what good practices are.
I see far too many myths embedded in some of these conversations, and some of these misconceptions can actually drive a conversation toward something that simply can’t happen. That’s just a waste of everyone’s time.
December 9th, 2009 at 3:27 pm
@DA, so are you saying that a public license for all sites ‘can’t happen’ or wouldn’t be a potential solution? Or are you saying that you believe that some people still think that streaming is somehow not a delivery system because it’s really the same as downloading?
Either way, in my opinion, in both cases, the user still makes a decision to ‘listen’either online or offline (or is he/she just story files with mute button on?) We all know that youtube for example, uses a download mechanism and is not a ’stream’ because it copies the file from the youtube servers into your browser cache and although it may seem like a ’stream’, it’s not. It simply starts playing before the download is complete. Obviously because we can record one of these so-called ’streams’, I don’t see any difference between a stream and a download and I likewise don’t see why a stream costs 1p and a ‘wholesale download’ would cost 50p. (But, Obviously, from the point of view of the record labels, they believe that because people can listen to music in a coal mine or in an airplane if it is the ‘download’ version.. that somehow a download is worth more. I see them both as the same thing.)
One of the things that will not likely go away, is the evolution of language and terms like ‘internet radio’ and ‘internet TV’ and terms like ‘webcast’, etc. which are analog adaptations of language to a digital world. I don’t believe that the use of those terms can realistically be avoided although most people do realise what is really going on. We all know that there isn’t a big antenna that sends frequencies over the net. I think we all understand your point and the stigma associated with using analog terms in a digital world. So, are you saying that we need to create a new language for what is being spoken about or can it be understood what people are referring to without a new list of terminology? With one, the data is transferred bit by bit continuously and listened to online (a stream of data), 1’s and 0’s, that are being sent from some server to your machine. And with the latter, the data is downloaded bit by bit and stored on your hard drive to be heard at a later point in time off-line. I believe that most people understand this. I also don’t understand where you believe people are being ‘ripped off’. Most service who deem themselves ’streaming’ services are free anyway. They are working off of an advertising funded approach to renumerating creators (e.g. the sportifies et al of the world).
December 9th, 2009 at 7:37 pm
Bingo! On all 3.
Well, if you understand that, then why would anyone insist the Internet BEHAVE as though it was an analog world??
The only one that has been creating “new language” here is YOU. That’s the problem.
Not ALL language “evolves” in the manner you’re referring to. Some terms get REPLACED by other terms, as some things become OBSOLETE. Nothing I’m talking about has become obsolete, and the terms used to describe any of it are CONSTANT.
My whole point here is that you can’t just summarily put your own spin on anything you want to, just to make things you don’t understand more palatable for yourself – you have to keep within the confines of what is real, possible, established, accepted, etc.
December 9th, 2009 at 8:28 pm
right, er, so, what’s your definition of ‘pirate’ or ‘pirating’ in reference to copies? how are people currently using that word? And what’s your definition of ’sharing’. What’s your definition of ‘copy’? What’s your definition of ‘copyright’? What’s your definition of ‘ownership’? What’s your definition of a ‘download’? Obviously we can’t do stream because it simply doesn’t exist. It’s a cached download that can also be copied in the interim depending upon your browser settings. Right, so, where did my ‘new language’ begin here? Was it when I said that recorded music has always been copies? erm?
With reference to analog and digital. In the way technology has always been used, it’s meant to be a catalyst to our ‘being’ as humans. Digital isn’t the be all and end all. I’m certainly not putting my own ’spin’ on anything. It’s just that we live in a world where there are laws, precedence, rights, etc. It’s not just because you CAN that it’s all going to be kosher. If you have a fast car that breaks the speed limits when you press the gas pedal, it doesn’t mean that the state trooper will ignore you just because your car ‘can’. It simply doesn’t work that way with life. You know, you can choose to do loads of things. You can kill people, you can pilfer, extort, give, take, abuse, use, flatter, pursue, etc. Loads of ‘can do’s’ are out there. Just because there is ‘digital’ and files can be ‘copied’ doesn’t mean that you simply turn the world upside down. Nor did discovering that the Sun wasn’t the center of the Universe suddenly change everything. It’s fairly simple if you bring it all back down to the basics.
December 9th, 2009 at 10:50 pm
@Indiana:
WTF is all this?!? You’re just making less sense than ever.
I’m not going to bother going down this black hole of ignorance with you anymore.
I was the one that started with the basics, which you threw back at me, insisting it was all “my opinion”, and all the while carrying on like you understood everything better than I ever could. From that point on, there’s been no talking to you.
I say something only comes in blue, you come back with, “Why are you talking about colours?” I tell you the difference between 2 things, you come back with, “It’s not important anyway.”
This is because you came here with your own hellbent mission, which would seem to be to push the idea of a public levy on the internet, based on music itself being summarily considered a “service” – a combination of two completely flawed concepts (which a bunch of us have given solid reasons for) – and damned if you’ll accept anything that would stand in the way of promoting it.
December 9th, 2009 at 11:16 pm
Naw, that didn’t change much did it? It only spelled the beginning of the end of the reign of ignorance fostered by the church known as the dark ages. I mean, the Renaissance, that wasn’t much of a change, was it? Guys like Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci, the dawn of modern science, no big deal right? If it wasn’t for the Renaissance we wouldn’t even be having this discussion, as guys who followed like Thomas Edison would have been burned or hanged by the church.
December 10th, 2009 at 4:02 am
@DA how did I insist it was ‘all your opinion’ and why are you infering that as if I ever said the it was ‘all your opinion’? It’s not ‘all your opinion’. Did you read my number 43?
Being able to make copies is a ‘fact’. You have always been able to make copies for personal use. Making copies and distributing them for the entire world to access seems to be an issue for most musicians and artists and obviously the copyright people. Just because you have had the abiity to do so for the past decade or so does not mean that it’s right to do. e.g. Just because your car has the technology to speed doesn’t make it right to speed either.
But hey, if you feel like continuing to retell the story about how the internet works, how your computer caches a ’streaming download’ versus a ‘download’ and if you still believe that people in the world (even programmers who are also musicians and artists) that you speak to are clueless, feel free to do so. It would be nice though if we could move ahead to the mission points regardless of ‘your opinion’ that other people (especially if they are artists or maybe if they are a woman) somehow don’t know or understand how technology works.
December 10th, 2009 at 4:14 am
and @DA, I’m assuming that you know that a public license for websites is completely technically possible. Yet, you say ‘it can’t happen’. But, of course it can. Making a statement like ‘public use for websites can’t happen’ must mean more like ‘you don’t want it to happen’ for some reason? It’s clearly NOTHING to do with the technology and remember, the sites that call themselves ’streaming site’s’ don’t care whether users copy and keep the download or not, these sites are simply sites that focus on remuneration of the rights holders (although some of them encrypt). They are ’services’ and the features are ’service oriented’. These ‘Streaming sites’ don’t claim that there is some magical difference between a ’streamed download’ and a download. It’s irrelevant. However, they are actually ‘proof’ that a public license for websites is completely technologically workable and that the main problem for any service is that ‘major label licensing to websites’ routes is absolutely not economically workable (e.g. Spiral Frog, Pandora, Spo’r'tify, etc. all hemoraging models financially due to the control ethics of the major music labels)
December 10th, 2009 at 4:26 am
@DA (your 46) I’ve never heard of a ‘public levy’ before so, I think you are either confusing me with someone else on the a2f2a or maybe you’ve just made up a new word?
I think there is a real problem with perhaps your understanding of what a ‘public license’(website oriented) is and what an ‘ISP levy’ would be. They are two completely and utterly different things. So, now, you are putting two completely different ideas together as one word now? “A public levy”… um. What is a public levy?
December 10th, 2009 at 6:41 am
@ Indiana:
“You have always been able to make copies for personal use.”
No you haven’t.
Cheers!
December 10th, 2009 at 9:01 am
@jon, ok, maybe making a copy of vinyl was difficult in the past. So, as soon as we had tape recorders and CD burners, we have been ‘able’ to make copies.
December 10th, 2009 at 9:05 am
(and, of course, if you go back to the 18th century when people could ‘hand copy’ the sheet music or a book. I guess it’s just mainly vinyl and 8 track which was difficult to copy for individual use or private use.)
December 10th, 2009 at 9:11 am
@ Indiana:
‘able’ isn’t the same as ‘allowed’.
Cheers!
December 10th, 2009 at 9:48 am
that’s why I put “able”
lol x
December 10th, 2009 at 12:13 pm
@Indiana
Your dredging up some really old memories. I used to record a lot of my vinyl albums to cassette. It had nothing to do with piracy, just that records wore out with repeat play so for me it was a way to preserve them. It didn’t hurt anything that I could play the cassette in my car too.
December 10th, 2009 at 4:10 pm
yep. I think a lot of people did that. I used to do it too because my little brother used to scratch all my records! So, I wanted to ‘protect’ the vinyls and it was always a really big deal to go out and buy a record once I’d saved up enough change from doing chores for weeks! (I grew up in a farming community and it took about 10 gallons of gasoline to drive to the nearest record shop!) Back then, It was generally accepted by the industry for people to make a copy for their own use. I don’t remember it being considered ‘piracy’ unless people sold bootlegs or mass produced the copies. That’s one of the things that was so ridiculous about the seemingly ’sudden’ threat of prosecution for copying music from a CD onto a PC or MP3 player a few years back. But, the reason why the industry got so up-in-arms about it was that they feared the ‘Napster effect.’
December 10th, 2009 at 8:10 pm
@Indiana:
Oh! Suddenly language and reasonable use of terminology now matters?! It’s funny how that works only in one direction! To anyone else reading it, it was probably obvious I DID use the wrong word.
Yup! That’s a confession. Oh well, “it’s really not important”, is it?!
As for the rest of it…
#readingcomprehensionfail
In case you missed it, this page was created to explain why the Internet is not a “broadcast medium”. It is FACTUAL, not opinion-based. Yet, all I’ve ended up doing is having to defend myself for posting what it says, or explain to you why I gave you the previous explanation, all sparked by your own questions, whose answers were apparently “not important”.
Too many of these discussions have been dominated by efforts to point out why some things you’re saying either need to be tweaked to make proper sense, or just don’t make sense at all. And, every “coarse-sounding” remark we end up making appears to be adding up on some “Why P2Pers are Simply Baseless Anti-Artist Lunatics” scorecard being kept by lurking FAC members, who will use this an another excuse to simply not participate.
If we were collaborating on a new song, and I told you, for example, that the top line in a treble-cleffed staff is “G”, you’d waste no time in telling me I’m wrong (I would hope!). But, if I came back with “Yeah, but it doesn’t have to be, as an ‘evolution’ has come into music that has some using it as “C” or even “C#!”, I’m sure you’d be trying to correct me, and scratching your head about what you just heard at the same time. If I persisted not to accept that the whole thing was completely misguided (nuts!), you’d probably be at the same place I am with you now.
I’m not going to accept any more blame for your “victimization”. What I am going to do is simply redirect my efforts to where they’ll make better progress on this site.
Damned if I do… Damned if I don’t!
December 11th, 2009 at 8:25 am
@DA Yes, what you were saying is factual and not opinion based. Which I agree totally (and why I purposefully brought up the new word you created of ‘Public levy’. In song writing, have no worry, most of the time we try and listen and it’s fairly easy to collaborate as long as it sounds good.:) But, what I was suggesting is that since both types of ‘downloads’ are essentially the same, the only way to differentiate between the two is through language so that people understand why type it is. Although one might not truly ‘exist’. The reason why some services have moved to streaming is because the labels want 50p for a ‘download’ and only 1p for a ’streamed download’. (it’s silly, we all know, but, it’s also a fact.)
With a ‘public license’ it’s about websites who generate revenue from using other people’s media. An ISP levy is obviously exactly that. But, I don’t know what a public levy is with regards to the conversation, so, I was thinking that maybe someone had brought that up as an idea and was wondering what it was or if it was a fusion of the two words.
I certainly don’t think that p2p users are anti-artist lunatics at all. In fact, I’ve never had issue with the basic p2p user. I’ve only had issues with the sites that use other peoples works without remuneration to the creators. My philosophy is that if we can find a way where all types of distribution on the web be it via p2p, social networks, search engines, etc would make their contribution directly to artists based upon the public use, it might circumvent this whole argument of ‘legal vs. illegal’ and ‘infringing vs. not infringing’. If you were to get inside my head, you would see that it’s the vantage point I’m coming from.
By the way, I don’t feel ‘victimized’ at all. I apologize if you feel that way as it’s never been something that I feel. If I felt ‘victimized’ or thought that you were being abusive, I’d tell you straight up.
I kind of summed up what I think I’ve collected from what people have been saying here: http://a2f2a.com/2009/12/09/artists-selling-directly-to-fans/#comment-1181 But, I’m not sure if it’s totally acurate or not. So, I put it in the thread to see if anyone agreed or disagreed with it. That’s what I have in my notes so far anyway.
December 11th, 2009 at 10:38 am
To the average user of the Internet, as in a person who doesn’t understand TCP/IP at all, not even a clue, paying 50p for a download (which in their mind they ‘keep’/'own’) and 1p for a stream (which in their mind isn’t stored on their Windows machine, assuming GNU/Linux or Unix users know better) makes sense.
They don’t even know what cache is.
That’s the problem. So to charge 50p for a stream and then try to explain it’s really a download would piss of the ignorant majority of the users of the Internet.
That’s the other problem, ignorance is total bliss, and a real pain in the ass for those that know having to answer over and over questions by people that don’t want to know. (NOT referring to Indianna or Billy here, just people needing tech support but don’t want to educate themselves to make life easier on everyone)
December 11th, 2009 at 1:54 pm
@robert Yes, just to clarify though (about the 1p and 50p), it’s the record labels who are asking for 1p per stream and approx 50p per download from the services (and in many cases it’s a ‘greater of or minimum ‘, etc. scenario as well.) And, even with those impositions on the services from the labels, some of the major labels also impose restrictions upon how many times a user can listen to any given file per month, etc. (It means that a site offering either or both services need to pay these fees to the labels each time the tune is stream-downloads and or ‘downloaded’). It’s been very weird trying to understand why the labels continue to do this but, you are probably right, they probably think that the general public are idiots, when, personally, I believe the reality is the opposite. It’s fairly easy for even novice users to figure out how to do just about anything with the plethora of information readily searchable.
December 11th, 2009 at 2:50 pm
@Indiana
Actually, a lot of the general public are idiots, but the labels don’t even need to count on that. I’ve seen some very smart people who were clueless regarding computers, so even if the no. of all around dummies was small, they can add to that number average to smart people who are not computer savvy. I mean just look at the trouble people here have had trying to explain this issue and you can see that the labels and anyone else can probably get away with a “streaming” price plan for quite some time. Christ you would not fk’ing BELIEVE how much trouble I’ve had trying to explain basic computer file management to various people.
December 11th, 2009 at 3:07 pm
” With a ‘public license’ it’s about websites who generate revenue from using other people’s media. An ISP levy is obviously exactly that. ”
Once again, no it’s not.
Collecting from specific websites that use your media = reasonable.
Collecting money from the ISP, when not all websites use your media is not reasonable. The ISP levy assumes that all of the internet OWES someone something, when only some sites do. There are already mechanisms in place to handle that sort of thing and they are being abused already.
A public license covering a specific website is not the same as an ISP levy. It never will be .. ever.
December 11th, 2009 at 3:19 pm
@DA ” Too many of these discussions have been dominated by efforts to point out why some things you’re saying either need to be tweaked to make proper sense, or just don’t make sense at all. And, every “coarse-sounding” remark we end up making appears to be adding up on some “Why P2Pers are Simply Baseless Anti-Artist Lunatics” scorecard being kept by lurking FAC members, who will use this an another excuse to simply not participate. ”
Yup, exactly.
It’s not much different than the idiot that jumped on Jon because p2pnet ‘promoted violence’ based on the posts of one idiot who no one there ever took seriously anyway.
As soon as I saw “Poor Indiana Gregg” stated, that’s where it became apparent. There is no way to demonstrate to them that making specific websites that actually use their material pay for that priviledge is nothing like levying the entire internet, when not all sites use media in that way. Anyone who tries to correct them is picking on them
( Poor Lily, Poor Indiana .. et al yes, indiana I realize you don’t claim to be personally victimized but it’s obvious someone wants to characterize it that way ).
It’s no way to ’solve’ anything and looks like one big trap.
December 11th, 2009 at 4:28 pm
@monkey You’re probably right. Many of us grew up with atari and used it for our recordings and then moved through to midi and on and on. In the same way that it’s hard to explain to new engineers how to record properly because they’ve gotten used to plug-ins rather than actual ‘rooms’ it’s probably difficult for normal or even intellectual people to understand file management! lol For Kerchoonz, it’s easier to do a streaming deal with the labels because they don’t want as much money even though they must know that anyone can ‘keep’ the stream and if they can’t work out how to permanently download it, there are plenty of digital recording options with a big red record button on them! It’s kind of silly isn’t it;) teeeeeeeee
December 11th, 2009 at 4:48 pm
@Indiana:
There comes a point in any “heated” discussion where the main point that sparked the whole thing may have gotten lost in the shuffle. I think we’re there.
How ’bout we just wipe it off the board and move on? Any prior misconceptions that are important will “come back” when they demonstrate they are present. These can be “cleaned up” maybe with a different approach, a little piece at a time, if necessary.
December 11th, 2009 at 5:23 pm
@Dredd:
“It’s no way to ’solve’ anything and looks like one big trap.”
Alas, so is trying to think through frustration.
Even if a “strong” reaction is “warranted”, it often doesn’t accomplish the required result, and that adds to our own frustration over it, and if we feed that, we can spiral into a “black hole” of dysfunctional conversation.
I’m certainly not the “model citizen” to be giving any lectures on this subject (I AM, after all, the Devil’s Advocate!), but I always reach a point where I know my own behaviour’s not helping matters. And that point usually comes “slightly” AFTER my behaviour has started to “not help”.
We all want to see our collective brain start pumping out something progressive here. That IS one of our missions. But one other of our missions is to better understand where we’re all coming from. That one may very well take precedence (whether we choose to or not), and will require much more effort.
There’s lots of damage to repair. Lots of misconceptions (on BOTH sides of this) to clear up. It wasn’t supposed to be easy.
For what it’s worth, I’m going to approach this whole thing with a slightly different mindset I hope will make my input more useful to this effort. Part of that mindset will be to make certain efforts not to contribute to the upset, wherever possible. This doesn’t mean not voicing all of my opinions – just means trying a different approach. Bottom line: I want this forum to work.
And, I don’t believe all the artists are against the principles expressed on this site. Until we get beseiged with artists calling us all “Gypsies, Tramps and Thieves”, I think most of what some would have us believe is simply heresay. Truth is, we don’t know.
Chin up, my friend. We’ll get through this part.
December 11th, 2009 at 5:57 pm
@dredsnik oops, I can see how you read what I wrote when I said: “With a ‘public license’ it’s about websites who generate revenue from using other people’s media. An ISP levy is obviously exactly that.” but, I wasn’t saying that an ISP levy was the same as a public license… what I meant was:
‘An ISP levy is exactly what those two words imply an “ISP levy”(which would be a tax on the ISPs)…. and a “Public license is about websites who generate revenue from using other people’s media (two entirely different things which were also addressed as two entirely different things in my first post about the two http://a2f2a.com/2009/11/12/woman-at-work-part-ii/
Sorry if it didn’t come out clearly 
December 11th, 2009 at 6:04 pm
@dredsnik I think, however, that since my first post about the two very different things “ISP levy” being COMPLETELY different to “Public license for websites” (which I’ve pointed out several times on these threads) I’m having trouble understanding why you would now infer that I think that both are the same? DA obviously realised that I was pointing out very clearly that the two are completely different things. I’m a little confused at how you missed that.
December 11th, 2009 at 6:10 pm
hmmm.. why are my no. 68 and 69 in reverse order of how I posted them? weird. (69 came before 68)
December 11th, 2009 at 6:23 pm
oh, ok… now I see why! I was on the same thread with two browsers and my second post posted faster than the first one. hmm. Anyway @dresdnik, please read 69 first and 68, where I realise why you probably interpreted what I meant in a different way than it was meant. Sorry for the confusion:)
@da, no probs. When I read through this thread, I can see how some of the things I say could be misinterpreted as well due to the way I wrote them versus my thought pattern. For example, when I answered Billy by saying ‘it actually doesn’t matter”, I was referring to streams versus downloads because for me, they are the same thing, however, when I was talking about levy versus public license, I was pointing out that they completely different. In both cases, what I said seemed to have been mis-read for whatever reason. It may be because I spend most of my days speaking French rather than english. Grief.
December 11th, 2009 at 6:54 pm
“why are my no. 68 and 69 in reverse order…?”
I’m familiar with “69″, but what’s a “68″?
December 11th, 2009 at 9:57 pm
teeeeheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee
December 12th, 2009 at 3:25 am
I also know that “72″ is the same as “69″, only there’s 3 others watching. (Okay, ‘my bad! I’ll stop now.)
December 12th, 2009 at 10:11 am
” @dredsnik oops, I can see how you read what I wrote when I said: “With a ‘public license’ it’s about websites who generate revenue from using other people’s media. An ISP levy is obviously exactly that.” ”
Yup, I did ‘exactly that’
. Misread your post. I hope what I wrote earlier shows that I am not completely unsympathetic.
I think charging individual websites a FAIR amount for media used outside the exceptions of ‘Fair Use’ is right and proper. The current mechanisms in place for that type of use are flawed heavily in favor of CORPORATE rights holders who also misuse those mechanisms. I don’t know if those mechanisms can be repaired. At the very least, the abuserd need to be held accountable.
An ISP levy simply enables corporate abusers to abuse more profitably, and does not take into account millions of sites which do not use anyone elses media ( yes, they do exist ), or stay within the parameters of fair use.
December 12th, 2009 at 5:39 pm
@dreddsnik
yes, I think it should only be a ‘fair’ amount charged to websites as a license fee. I think that one of the things maybe you might of misunderstood about how I meant when we were talking about the ISP ‘levy’ theory was that I was meaning a contribution from the ISPs on a pro-rata type basis and not taxing the entire internet. But, I like the way that Bennett describes it in the next thread because he calls it an ISP ‘license fee’. Which more or less is very similar to what I was thinking. (ISPs who use music, film, media, etc.) But, I think I was wrong to have used the word ‘levy’. I like the way he (bennet) worded it as a new ‘digital right for transmission’ because it gets the point across better with regards to rendering ‘copyright’ on the web obsolete and it also communicates the idea of an ISP contributing through a ‘license’. I don’t know if you’ve had time to read that thread yet, but, it would be cool to see what you think about the idea. 
x
December 12th, 2009 at 6:30 pm
” But, I like the way that Bennett describes it in the next thread because he calls it an ISP ‘license fee’. Which more or less is very similar to what I was thinking. (ISPs who use music, film, media, etc.) ”
I’m really not trying to be obtuse, but this is still a terminology issue.
ISP’s, for what little I know, don’t ‘use’ media of any kind. An ISP only provides individual or businesses a way to connect their computers or systems to the internet. That’s it. People or business that connect via the ISP are the ones potentially using ( or abusing ) media. There should never be a tax on an ISP for what people or businesses who use their access for, in the same way that an ISP can’t be held responsible for criminal acts committed by users. ISP should not and should NEVER have responsibility OR control over what individual users do. Charge individual users or website owners, that fine. An ISP is simply an access point, nothing more. This is where an ISP tax, levy , whatever you want to call it today, fails for me.
December 12th, 2009 at 8:18 pm
@Dredd:
“An ISP only provides individual or businesses a way to connect their computers or systems to the internet. That’s it.”
This is where I was originally going, whenever any “tax”, “levy”, “fee”, or “license” was proposed toward the ISP itself.
The fact that they simply aren’t “using” anything being transmitted over the wires means that any such extraneous fees directed at the providers would be illogical and unfair.
This would make it necessary to attempt to apply the fee directly to the users (in order to “legalize” filesharing), again opening up the issue of needing user tracking and DPI.
Everything you’re saying makes perfect sense at my end.
December 12th, 2009 at 8:42 pm
yes, agreed, except that at the moment, we’re seeing them bedding with labels and providing ’services’ that they (in turn) market to their customers (e.g. the Virgin media Universal deal). http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8100394.stm
So, this ‘deal’ and the license fees associated creates another take upon what the ISP’s original ‘duty’ (for lack of a better word) was originally (or at least it’s definition). Do you see where I’m coming from? Since they are doing these kinds of deals with major labels, chances are they will become more promiscuous with it and the competitors will likewise be bedding themselves into it… again, not so clear cut for the individual musician or ‘rights holder’. Like, it’s just a speculation, but, what do you think?
December 12th, 2009 at 8:43 pm
and… if you read between the lines, it’s ‘us’ who will eventually pay for this service.
December 13th, 2009 at 11:22 am
“…it’s ‘us’ who will eventually pay for this service.”
That IS the point.
Everytime a service provider is told to pay more for his part, it gets automatically passed on to the customers. That one’s a given, but not the whole story, when they “partner up” with “content providers”.
Any fees incurred by their subsequent “use” of the content (for their own profit) will also get “integrated” with any increases they’re passing on to the customers – disguising it as an increase in an existing fee or service component. (i.e. charge more on something like the modem.)
December 13th, 2009 at 11:56 am
Here’s another interesting angle…
When costs get arbitrarily handed down like that, it makes it possible that the very creators of the product that sparked the fee could end up paying for it as well! (Artists pay for internet connections as well, don’t they?)
Just another of the many eerie thoughts I can never get out of my head.
December 14th, 2009 at 11:56 am
@DA I see your point, but, in a way, you know, artists consume music as well (and probably more than the average fan). So, it would make sense.
December 14th, 2009 at 12:41 pm
“…artists consume music as well…”
Yes, but should they be paying for the “consumption” (by others) of their own creations?
Sort of represents a self-defeating part of such a mechnism. It means some of the money simply disappears unnecessarily through the process between the “consumption” and the “compensation”. The amount wasted could be significant, or it could be insignficant, depending on how many points of “consumption” are being paid for, and by whom.
I’ll agree, it may not be the most “worrisome” point. It’s simply a point of observation – where there’s waste, usually indicates a flaw in the design that might allow for other concerns as well.
December 14th, 2009 at 1:48 pm
hmm. It’s sort of like saying that if an artist pays his TV license or his radio license, he is indirectly paying for his own work as well, except that he probably won’t be watching himself on TV or listening to himself on the radio.
December 14th, 2009 at 4:26 pm
@Indiana
Are you kidding me? Maybe some old guys that have been famous for 25+ years are going to say “turn that shit off” when they see/hear their stuff, but I can’t picture any new bands NOT wanting to hear themselves on the radio or watch themselves on tv.
December 14th, 2009 at 9:31 pm
@monkey ok, maybe some artists or bands are that ‘into’ themselves, but, from what I’ve personally experienced, most artists can’t cope with listening to themselves. They want to move on to the next piece of work. Hmm. Maybe there is something about that idea of ‘famous’ that has been used and abused. I guess maybe if it’s about the ‘fame’ then, they may be so narcissistic. But, the very idea of being creative means that as an artist you are constantly looking towards a new path. In my point of view, I see making music, being creative, and the whole road we go down as artists is that you are constantly shape-shifting and creating. So, why would you listen or look at the stuff you already know. You’ll be spending time perhaps looking and listening to your peers and creating new thoughts and ideas. But, maybe I’m being naive. I don’t know. I guess in the case of how you’re saying, it must depend upon the motivation of the individual artist/band. If all this pop culture nonsense has only produced a bunch of people who wanna be ‘famous’ and that’s the way you see it, then, I think that the popular manufactured machine has gotten the best of you. That’s not what I see as either artistic or creative. But, in these days, sometimes you have to use the 3 minute formula code (verse bridge choruse verse bridge chorus mid 8 outro chorus, ad lib) scenario to get the mission point out there (thesus, anti-thesus, statement of culture, etc.) Is it about famous or is it about message or is it about going against the norm? Hard to say anymore. In the indie world, I don’t believe that every artist will sell their soul. Maybe I’m being ultra-naive.
December 14th, 2009 at 11:43 pm
Because you’ve been struggling, playing dives for little or no pay for years, maybe in and out of different bands, been ripped off, worked all kinds of shit jobs to pay for equipment, and now it’s all paid off, FUCK YES I’d want to hear myself on the radio and see myself on tv, I don’t consider it egotistical at all, merely enjoying the reward of years of labor and frustration. Doesn’t in the LEAST mean that you can’t be working on the next album, just that you took a moment off to kick back and enjoy some success. Can’t say I personally knew anyone who got famous, but I knew a couple of bands that would sit by the radio to hear themselves played on some rinky dink tiny station(big stations don’t play local bands) and be very happy when their song got played. Now if these guys got famous I think it would be a while before they got jaded enough to just say, “aww, it’s us again, whatever”.
December 14th, 2009 at 11:53 pm
@Indiana
BTW, although I never got anywhere near any kind of fame, I did have my tiny bit of 15min when one of my cgi graphics (my hobby, digital art) got featured on the sci fi channel’s web site. Even though I made the graphic, had both the rendered jpg AND the .max 3d file, you can bet I went to see it on the sci fi channels site as soon as they posted it. Call me an egoist if you want, but there it is.
December 15th, 2009 at 8:49 am
@Monkey:
Congrats! It is a good feeling and necessary for the ego and self confidence to have your efforts acknowledged.
I write music, I have a myspace account, I never see the number of plays increase. It’s OK, I know what I put up there was crap compared to stuff many artists create.
But like you, I get excited when I see the “play count” increment. I still think it’s probably some ISP caching it, for what reason I don’t know, but it’s exciting to think “wow, someone actually listened to one of my songs.”
I would be joyful if one of my songs was on the radio or used in a commercial (with my knowledge first would be nice) or played at a club or something.
I wrote one for an artist I really admire and I do enjoy hearing it. Well, the music that is. Once the vocals start I am immediately wishing I had the time to redo them. There are two plays listed for that song, though I wonder if said artist actually listened to it, he’s on my myspace so who knows. Maybe it sucked so bad he refused to acknowledge it. I thought it was the best sounding recording and one of the best lyrically I’ve written. Again, the vocals are a huge disappointment, but I had a timeline I gave to myself to have it up on myspace and well… it’s there.
December 15th, 2009 at 11:03 am
@monkey, I think you’re missing the original point. If you’re on TV, it’s not like that’s the only reason you would use the TV. You are likely to watch other programs that don’t contain ‘yourself’. I don’t think that artists pay for their TV or radio license just because they want to see themselves on TV. That’s the point. Just like artists don’t pay their mobile & internet subscriptions just because they want to ‘hear’ themselves online!!!
December 15th, 2009 at 1:13 pm
@Indiana
Never meant to imply anyone would want to see themselves 24/7. I know the “Monkey” show would get old fast. What I was disagreeing with was your statement that they couldn’t cope listening to themselves, which means they wouldn’t want to hear themselves at all.
@Robert
“Again, the vocals are a huge disappointment”
You should hear me singing “the last remake of Paranoid”. Triple tracked my vocals, added reverb, still horrible, horrible, HORRIBLE!!!!
December 15th, 2009 at 4:13 pm
“You should hear me singing “the last remake of Paranoid”. Triple tracked my vocals, added reverb, still horrible, horrible, HORRIBLE!!!!”
So, why was it we *should* hear it?
(JK!)
December 15th, 2009 at 4:22 pm
@monkey, I just meant that most people don’t spend their time listening to themselves, that’s all. If they do a spot for radio or TV they might watch/listen just to see how it went, but, in general, I don’t think people go and listen to themselves very often and I don’t think they download their own copies from the net, for example, either. (normally, they already have a few copies of their own stuff anyway.)