Hi: This is a comment to Crosbie’s thoughts in The ‘loyal guardian of musicians’ which he says among other things, “an artist can say goodbye to the 18th century business model of selling their recordings to a record label for them to sell copies, and instead sell their recordings directly to their fans instead (for possibly even more money)”.
This’d be too long as a post so here it is as a kind of article. 
“a2f2a.com went online about a week ago under the premises: There’s no technological solution to the problems artists face following the digitisation of music; and,P2P users are more than willing to pay for music if they can be sure their money is going to the artists whose work they enjoy,” I said on October 28.
But it lacked something important — a logo.
I gave November 15 as the closing date for a contest, and I’ve had a couple of enquiries asking when the results would be announced.
Should I wait a while, do you think?
Sharing. Caring.
“I am he as you are he as you are me and we are all together,” I said in another post, quoting The Beatles’ 1967 song I Am The Walrus.”
Peers to peers. People 2 people. Sharing. Caring. P2P.
“Now there’s a chance for two critical masses — those who make songs and those who enjoy them — to meet online,” I said, going on, “And if they do, it could start a massive chain reaction uniting musicians with fans and fans with musicians, to everyone’s mutual benefit.”
I co-founded a2f2a – artists to fans to artists — with Billy Bragg, a high profile performer with a conscience and I admit, I’d hoped it wouldn’t be long before the Featured Artists Coalition, of which he’s a director, would drop their anti-fan, anti-consumer support of the bizarre entertainment cartel Three Strikes and You’re Cut off legislation.
Don’t misunderstand me. I wasn’t thinking a2f2a would make that happen. I just hoped common sense would prevail.
A coterie of world-famous musicians, and well over 100 indie artists of lesser renown, loudly, proudly and publicly backed the scam, completely reversing their previous position. There’s still a chance they’ll see sense and reverse themselves again. But even if they do, will it be too little and too late?
Too fast to follow
Since a2f2a was launched, a lot has happened. Hollywood and Big Music have the more famous indexing sites on the run, and that’s being painted as a victory.
But it isn’t. Not even nearly. It merely demonstrates they’ve learned absolutely nothing since firing up their sue ‘em all anti-consumer, anti-P2P in 2003, and they still have no clue how to conduct themselves online.
The lawsuits were never about money. They were about one thing only: control. And the Big 4 lost that when the first MP3 file went from one computer to another.
I call the dark nets the light nets. And that’s where the real ‘illegal’ action is.
You have to have actually see them in action, as I have. The traffic is literally too fast to follow.
But that would instantly change if the labels ever drop their wholesale prices and open their catalogues; and if artists of all persuasions finally realise the only way they’ll survive in this digital 21st century is to interact directly with their fans and customers.
There always has been and always will be music
I’d hoped a2f2a would in a small way show that fans, of whom I’m one, and musicians can between them demolish the wall erected by the major labels to keep them apart.
I still think that can happen, but first, artists have to be shaken out of the lethargy into which they’ve fallen.
I’ve contacted just about everyone I know, and have also approached several musicians’ organisations in Canada and abroad. No result.
There always has been and always will be music. The question today is: who’ll make the new music, and how will it reach us, the audience?
“Lucky for the industry, musicians tend to be a badly organized, somewhat apathetic bunch,” said Allison Outhit in Exclaim! magazine recently, adding:
“The industry has taken advantage of that lack of self-representation to promote itself as the loyal guardian of musicians”, and “Until the industry started suing music fans for sharing music on the web, artists were seemingly content to let that representation live.”
Not any more, I said, promising, we’ll have artists joining in soon enough.
Was I wrong?
The only way they’ll sell their recordings directly to their fans (for possibly even more money) will be if there’s common ground where the two sides can meet — independent artist sites which the artist, and not the labels, control.
We fans are willing.
But where are the musicians?
Cheers!
Jon Newton
December 9th, 2009 at 1:54 pm
Jon,
I’m afraid we have no-one to blame but ourselves.
The tone of the debate on this site is the main complaint I hear from fellow artists who I encourage to post. They look at the abuse that poor Indiana Gregg has to put up with and they think ‘do I need that shit?’. And can you blame them?
What have we artists learned so far from the debate at a2f2a.com?
1) That we can no longer sell copies
2) That copyright is a spurious 18th century concept that should be abandoned
3) That if we want to make a living we should sell more t-shirts
4) That there is no such thing as streaming
5) That the world is a black and white place in which you are either with us or against us
6) And there is no such thing as streaming, alright?
7) ALRIGHT??
Artists will join this debate if we can build a consensus. Until then, we’re just half a dozen or so souls arguing among ourselves.
December 9th, 2009 at 3:24 pm
@BB #1:
1) That we can no longer sell copies
No one said you can’t, it was clearly stated that the market is “dead” but iTunes is proof the market is not totally dead. People are just saying to rely solely on sale of copies as your income is not a good plan.
2) That copyright is a spurious 18th century concept that should be abandoned
If not abandoned, severely modified, however to try to remove non-commercial usage as a form of infringement really does open the door to abuse, just as including non-commercial infringement has opened the door to abuse. That’s what we have been repeatedly saying.
3) That if we want to make a living we should sell more t-shirts
Personally, I am tired of hearing this. We’ve given MANY other ideas, well beyond t-shirts. Selling your art is one of them! If the artists only read “sell more tshirts” they are not reading everything. They are more concerned about “Indianna’s abuse” (she has given much attitude and abuse is not what was given to her, inundated with questions yes, but that’s not abuse).
4) That there is no such thing as streaming
This is a technicality of importance because ISP’s know this, they understand packet transmissions and that’s ALL the Internet is. We are trying to help you! Don’t you see? If FAC agrees to some other idiotic ISP supported plan, you’ll be screwed and it will be because of ignorance.
5) That the world is a black and white place in which you are either with us or against us
No, we detect that from some artists, as their comments indicate as such, at times. We are not for or against artists. We are trying to help you. Trying to get you to break out of your current mindset and see the new opportunities presented! If you continue to view what we say with a bias, it doesn’t matter what we say, you’ll respond the same. We keep trying despite the ’selective reading’ that occurs from some artists who post here, mainly you and Indianna.
6) And there is no such thing as streaming, alright?
7) ALRIGHT??
While some of your artists say “do I need this shit?” we have many p2p/torrent users saying the same thing to us. They don’t want to waste any more of their time trying to help you see what many indie artists and former label artists see. It isn’t perfect and we never said it would be! But it is a hell of a lot better than what you have with the labels!
It’s almost like some artists here suffer from the abused-wife syndrome. You’re so used to being abused by the labels and the industry’s ways, you can’t break free despite the door being wide open in front of you. Yes, it is new and scary, but if you just fucking well try, you won’t be disappointed!
And by try, we don’t mean order a few extra t-shirts for your concert!
We have been trying to form a consensus but it won’t come overnight or even in a month or two. We have a lot of work to do yet. Armchair quarterbacks don’t really have much of a place to comment outside this forum because they are not backing up Indianna either! If you all share the exact same view, I can understand that feeling of “do I want this?” but I highly doubt everyone in FAC agrees 100% on everything.
Want to help? Want to make a real difference and not be abused by the labels or left in the dust by new artists and fans using new models void of old relic ideals? Then come here and get in the ring!
It’s not even a damn ring, it’s just discussions! But we don’t sit here and try to tell artists about what sells and what does not and why. We don’t demonstrate a lack of understanding for your art and creative process and try to get you to change it.
We’re trying to get you to change HOW YOU EARN A LIVING so you can actually EARN a living, a real living, from your fans, the way it should be!
December 9th, 2009 at 3:31 pm
Billy: well, the experiment is still ongoing, and I hope that a2f2a does achieve something – and I’m still engaged/committed to that.
In answer to your points:
(1) I believe that you can still sell copies, and that there is evidence to support that. In fact, that you can still sell copies, even as private individuals can share copies non-commercially without let or hindrance, and that you can continue to sell copies even after the period of commercial copyright monopoly has expired. The price you can charge per copy will be determined by what the market will bear, and will be a lot less than is currently being attempted for digital downloads; but it will be greater than zero, the marginal cost of copying and redistribution in the 21st century.
(2) I reiterate that the Pirate movement wish to reform, not abolish, copyright. Providing an incentive to encourage the production of creative works, and to reward the people who do that, so they can produce more, is good and right.
We want to have a real conversation about how that can work, and what will work in a digital era; monopoly rules that lock up our culture for more than a century, however, do not cut the mustard, and nor does destroying our free speech and private communication in the name of copyright enforcement.
(3) There is no “holy grail” or “one true business model”. If selling t-shirts works for you, great! If not… there are other ways, many other ways, and it is for the vendor to work out a model that works, not for the government to impose one. And sometimes business models that worked in one era don’t make sense in a later era, and should not be artificially preserved and enforced by government.
(4) Hmmm… Really, there is no such thing as streaming. When something is downloaded/streamed, the supplier cannot tell and cannot enforce the difference. Altering that (like some other kinds of forcing the digital age to behave like the physical world) has very bad effects in other ways, as it requires control of the recipient’s computer system by the distributor.
I think that covers the main items…? We’re all learning how to make this work, and we’d like to both be able to take advantage of the ability to distribute and share culture as widely as possible, together with rewarding and encouraging creative effort.
And I’d like to thank Indiana for her efforts and perseverance here, as one of a few artists who did take the time to engage with the debate here, she became rather a focus for all that other posters had to say. Rather like it was for Billy at times early on.
cheers
John
Nominating Officer, PPUK
December 9th, 2009 at 4:48 pm
What a load of crap.
I’m out of here Jon.
December 9th, 2009 at 5:00 pm
@ Billy and Indiana:
Ladies first.
Indiana has been holding the fort pretty much single-handed, and doing a pretty good job. “They look at the abuse that poor Indiana Gregg has to put up with and they think ‘do I need that shit?’.” So Indy, are you “poor Indiana Gregg” putting up with shit? We haven’t talked for a while — I’ve had problems at p2pnet I’ve had to deal with — but you’ve always given me the impression you’re someone who can, and does, give as good as she gets. But I could be wrong. Do you feel abused?
@ Billy. “we’re just half a dozen or so souls arguing among ourselves”. Not from where I’m sitting, and not judging by the flak I’m still getting from being here at all. It’s the nature of the net that a very small number of people actively comment while the vast majority — 99% or more? – merely lurk and listen. But the audience IS listening. And watching. But they’re not seeing much from artists. Other than from Indy, that is.
Cheers!
December 9th, 2009 at 5:50 pm
@billy & Jon: I think that part of the reason that a2f2a hasn’t attracted many artists could be due to the subject matter that is being presented. For example, because I’m more ‘involved’ in this debate, I’m spending more time trying to understand various points from the p2p community (and have been assessing this for quite some time)… What I mean is, maybe some of the articles could present subject matter that artists search for. It may be that you will need lure artists into a discussion where they feel ’safe’ by maybe presenting material that you think artists would appreciate or want to come and read and discuss. (And I don’t mean that the subject matter here isn’t interesting. It’s just a thought on how we might be able to attract more artists.)
No Jon, of course I don’t feel like a victim and I think we’ve spoken enough for you to know that I’m not the type of person to go off in a huff or get emotional about things. I’m gathering information. (not ammunition). I think however, that from an outsiders point of view (like a new artist coming to the site or new people joining in) that maybe sometimes it could ‘appear’ to look like abuse. But no, I don’t feel abused in this discussion here.
To be very honest with you all, IMO, the discussion has shown that there is still a great divide (not uniquely between musicians and fans, but, also in the differences in opinion amongst yourselves as p2p advocates.) But, that’s not to say that some progress hasn’t been made.
It is difficult because there are a good deal of ‘mixed’ messages that I’m reading. It would be nice to see more artists taking part. I know a lot are reading, but, they’re discussing it on the sidelines where it’s ’safe’ at the moment.
There’s no “poor Indy”? I’m a grown-up!
I don’t feel as though I’m taking ‘abuse’ although it probably looks that way to people who read these threads.
Here’s what I’ve learned about the opinions from P2p advocates here on a2f2a:
1) some p2p advocates believe in abolishing copyright whilst others believe in reducing copyright or at least it’s application with regards to personal use or ’sharing’. Other’s believe that it is their own ‘right’ to copy and distribute point blank.
2) a divided group of p2p advocates believe in reducing the cost of copies while the other half of them believe that ‘copies’ should not be sold and that musicians should sell their ‘recordings’ once to a limited ’set’. (maybe it’s not half/half, but, which is it?) While others believe that selling them a performance copy would be more ’scarce’ than selling published copies. (all of which are copies). A focus upon the fact that in the past artists have sold their copyright i to labels who then sold and promoted copies to the public was something devious.
3) other p2p advocates believe that artists should sell recordings and not copies stating that recordings should be sold directly to fans at a high price and then released to everyone else via p2p freely.
4) others believe that it is necessary to break down and destroy record labels
5) other p2p advocates seem to believe that musicians don’t work hard enough and would rather abolish any form of royalty system. In their eyes a royalty or compensation system is ‘money for nothing’ and something that only applies to the ‘elite’ and somehow serves the ‘labels’ only and not independent artists.
6) others believe that all copies should be free and musicians should only earn their living from playing live and selling physical product.
7) Others believe that websites should not be held accountable even if they use media in order to drive traffic and sell advertising and that the use of other people’s media on or via these commercial websites is not grounds for compensating the artists.
9) others in the same group believe that streams and downloads are not the same thing whilst some of them believe that they are fundamentally the same thing.
1o) most all believe that it’s stupid for record labels to sue their fans and most all believe that legislation e.g. 3-strikes will have a negative impact upon the relationship between fans and artists.
Listening through the various arguments, there is some degree of conflicting opinion. Not all of these statements can work ‘together’ as part of a fluid argument.
It should also be brought to light that most of the comments from ‘fans’ here are from primarily p2p advocates. They have said themselves that they obviously don’t represent the full spectrum of the population of ‘fans’ who are out there.
That sums up what I’ve learned (outside of what Billy pointed out above.)
December 9th, 2009 at 6:13 pm
@ Indy:
“It may be that you will need lure artists into a discussion where they feel ’safe’ by maybe presenting material that you think artists would appreciate or want to come and read and discuss.”
You’re probably correct. My problem would be finding the time to create the content.
Some of the stuff I have on p2pnet might fit the bill — I cover a lot of territory. How would you (and others ) feel if I re-posted p2pnet stuff here? Like I wouldn’t want to be perceived to be trying to foist p2pnet copy on a2f2a.
Other than that, if anyone feels like posting items, I’m at p2p @ shaw dot ca …
Cheers!
December 9th, 2009 at 6:50 pm
Me again:
Before I got hit with survival problems on my own site, I was researching ways to have live video streaming on a2f2a, and I still think that’s one of the best ways to go. Talking to people you can see is a whole lot different from straight text and it also allows moderation in the best sense of the word.
I’m going to pick that up again. So stay tuned.
Cheers!
December 9th, 2009 at 7:28 pm
@jon. I think it would be great because we could actually listen to each other and understand each other’s intent. Plus, it could be a positive promotional vehicle to a2f2a.com to bring more artists and fans into the discussion as long as everyone agrees to be civil in the discussion. (I’m thinking BBC Question Time a la Jon & Billy style ‘independent’ style).
@robert I’m a little worried about your comment that I’ve been abusive. I hope you don’t mean that. Sometimes I may come across as driven or perhaps agressive when illustrating a point, but abusive is certainly NOT part of my thought pattern. I don’t call names or make any attempt to demise, denigrate, or even provoke. I’ve not ‘teamed up’ or made accusations either. I’m only guilty of driving a point home to you with reference to the 3-strikes legislation because I truly believe that this government reaction has been provoked by the p2p community and my comment was in context at that point in the discussion (and only after you decided that I should be ‘upset’ and be told to ‘calm down’ when my comments were simply comments and not be interpreted as fired or emotional. This is yet another reason why perhaps a video conference would be a good thing. It would be great to have a listening session where we meet face-to-face. I would appreciate it. It would help me better understand the intent and it may help you understand how much time artists actually spend listening.
December 9th, 2009 at 9:51 pm
On copyright (several items in Bragg’s list):
To me, copyright is based not on the concept of personal property, but rather on the right to fair compensation for labor. That means that primarily copyright enforcement is about combating infringement that denies creators the ability to make a living off their work.
Given that, my perspective is that copyright is a good thing and should be enforced as much as possible; however, it’s always sheer stupidity to attempt the impossible and then cry every time you inevitably and predictably lose a major battle. The internet has fundamentally changed the copyright game in that it has made piracy of pretty much anything something that anyone at all can do at zero cost and with next to zero effort, and most people now do so on a daily basis. While I don’t think that’s necessarily good (morally), that’s the reality.
It’s a basic tenet of conflict that you evaluate your options and only fight the battles you are likely to win (at least when you have the choice). Analogously, it’s a basic principle of business that you weigh your options based on expected reward for cost/effort/risk, and choose the most favorable. Yet both of these have been effectively short-circuited by the copyright lobby’s attempts to frame copyright as a moral imperative, and as such provoke righteous indignation at the expense of logic and empirical evaluation.
So, what do we see if we apply these principles to copyright? My thesis is that, while some battles are favorable (e.g. going after large commercial infringers that have a large surface area), attempting to punish individual file sharers for minute individual infringements for purely personal use is a lost war, full stop. It is simply too financially costly to identify and punish the enormous numbers of file sharers out there for too little gain.
Even the copyright industries recognize and freely admit this; that is exactly why they push for special, extra-judicial systems of punishing file sharers, available only to them. No presumption of innocence, no right to defend yourself, no jury of your peers, no need to prove guilt; it’s simply too costly to give people fair trials. So, they advocate the complete destruction of the entire system of justice that (at least) the US was founded on, all so that they can play copyright whack-a-mole against those who in most cases (at least 90%, according to IFPI’s estimates) wouldn’t even have purchased what they pirated anyway.
Bottom line: this idea is fail, from a rational, empirical analysis.
My belief is that the only hope we have of fighting back casual piracy lies in education. Instead of threats of bone-crushing force, or tours of stupid “piracy sniffing” dogs, I’d advocate, for example, documentaries (or a reality show, if you can stomach it) about the life of the average band, illustrating what and how much goes into making a living for the average dude. Maybe I’m suffering from the false consensus problem here, but I believe that reason and education will be more effective than fear of brute force in producing respect for creators and their efforts (indeed, the only measurable effect the RIAA’s campaign to beat listeners into submission seems to be having is breeding contempt for creators, publishers, and copyright itself), ultimately leading to more people choosing to buy what they like instead of pirating it.
December 10th, 2009 at 8:54 am
” @robert I’m a little worried about your comment that I’ve been abusive. I hope you don’t mean that. Sometimes I may come across as driven or perhaps agressive when illustrating a point, but abusive is certainly NOT part of my thought pattern. ”
Yes, because when YOU do it, you’re ‘driven’ or ‘aggressive’.
When I do it, i’m ‘Hostile’, and giving ‘poor Indiana’ a bunch of ’shit’. Abusive was not part of MY thought process until Billy started with ‘ You just want to justify getting stuff for free’, and yourself suggesting the same thing. Looking down your nose at our Xbox playing butts certainly doesn’t help anything either. I begin to wonder just how ‘abused’ ‘poor Lily Allen’ actually was. The name calling started with the Artists. None of us followed suit, but you bet your behind it causes resentment.
You ‘Don’t care for my hostile attitude’, well I don’t care for the double standard here. You can come off just as ‘hostile’ as me, so can Billy, but that’s ok I since, after all, you aren’t the ones that just want stuff for free.
Oops, I forgot .. you’re just ‘driven’ and ‘aggressive’ .. well then that’s ok.
December 10th, 2009 at 9:38 am
@Everyone.
Several people here are guilty of giving attitude, or condescending tone, in their word choice.
Indianna, I never said you were abusive, but you do give condescending tone in your word choice. While you think it sounds happy and nice, it doesn’t when you read it without your mental bias of happy and nice.
Billy is guilty of the same thing.
And on the P2P side, Dred/DA/myself/Monkey, and maybe another or two, have given some textual attitude back.
But think about it, we’re frustrated. That’s normal!!!
Do you all get along with every family member? Every coworker? Every friend? Every stranger you meet? 100% of the time? Everything flowery?
The world is not like Full House, thankfully.
We will get annoyed, frustrated, pissed off, discouraged, and we’ll argue. That’s how things are done and it’s good that this comes out!
What matters is we move forward from it and try to be efficient!
We haven’t had a good rant so let it out, when you are all finished, we’ll focus back on coming to a consensus.
December 10th, 2009 at 10:09 am
@Dresdnik I don’t remember saying that you have a ‘hostile attitude’? Is there a link for that where I’ve said that? Likewise, I have never said that I’ve felt abused at all about anything. (although, there have been attempts made by some to try to put words in my mouth which I hadn’t said, didn’t imply, etc. Those are simply ‘inferences’ and perhaps prejugements based upon what others believe about my opinion.) There are some people who are so ‘enlightened’ here who believe that they can project
Likewise, I have never mentioned your XBox scenario on the a2f2a. That’s something that you (@dresdnik) brought over here from a different site that was written in a specific context which wasn’t about you. As you know, it was a generality about the p2p community in their millions. If you had 10% of those people alone actually bombarding Mandelson with letters, you’d have those 20 thousand voices heard. (and you must have know that it was what I meant.) And in my comment above no. 6, I make it very clear that I don’t feel ‘abused’ anyway. The statement about the Xbox was implying that those people must be busy doing something else. (I could have said they were busy playing the piano or busy pirating games. It wouldn’t have mattered because it’s an illustration).
December 10th, 2009 at 10:17 am
@Jon
How about starting out with a simple chat room? Sure it’s still text, but it’s live, and I have a feeling it would be far easier to implement than live video streaming. That is not to say you couldn’t still implement that later, just that a simple chat room script could be put up quickly until then. Just me, but I think flash is a little much for just a chat room. I ran a quick google search and came up with a link to some chat scripts here: http://www.free-scripts.net/cgi/chat.shtml
December 10th, 2009 at 10:39 am
I’ve had a bunch of emails asking if I’m planning on quitting a2f2a.com.
I’m not.
The only way we’re going to make any progress is if we talk and keep on talking and although it’s hard going at the moment, it’s still very early days and as much as anything else, we’re finding out how to make these discussions work.
I’ve also been acccused of being “sucked in by Indiana”. She has her point of view and she’s vocal about it. I totally disagree with much of what she’s espousing, as I said in a reply to one of the emails, and as I’ve told her more than once. But she has centre stage largely because she’s apparently the only one from the artist community who’s willing to step up (excluding Billy when he’s around, of course).
I know for an absolute, solid gold, cast-iron, set-in-concrete certainty a lot of eyes are watching this and not a few of them would like to see a2f2a fold.
That won’t happen as long as I’m a part of it.
I admit to getting pissed off, sometimes, and frustrated. But like everyone else here, I’m only human and I have my moments.
Then I tell myself I got involved in the first place because I want to help defeat the powerful corporate and governmental forces which want to continue to enslave us all, musicians and fans alike. And that hasn’t changed.
Cheers!
December 10th, 2009 at 11:02 am
@ Monkey:
Good idea.
Is anyone here technically up to implementing something like this?
Cheers!
December 10th, 2009 at 11:37 am
@Jon,
I have a feeling some of the posters here are a lot more hardcore IT than I am (programmers, sys admins), but I’ve done a fair amount of html/script implementation so if you have patience I can give it a shot. I’ll try implementing one of those scripts on my own web site, if I can get it working you can take a look at it, if you like it I can implement it here. If someone else here is a script guru I will bow out to my superiors, if not I’ll see what I can get working this weekend.
December 10th, 2009 at 11:52 am
@jon Since this is a wordpress blog, you could probably just choose from one of the wordpress chat plugins: http://wordpress.org/extend/plugins/tags/chat
December 10th, 2009 at 2:02 pm
@Jon
I’ve never done anything with wordpress, what I was planning was it’s own thing, uploaded to the server. One of the scripts I was looking at was the stand alone version of this which I saw on the plugins site Indiana referenced.
http://wordpress.org/extend/plugins/phpfreechat/
Don’t know how difficult it is to implement WP plugins, if it’s simple that may be the way to go.
December 10th, 2009 at 2:37 pm
@ Monkey:
I’ll try and have a look at this over the weekend. But I’m a bit stuck until after Christmas – I have a lot of stuff to do, what with re-jigging p2pnet and so on.
Cheers!
December 10th, 2009 at 6:55 pm
@Jon/Monkey:
1) People need to be plugged into chatrooms 24/7 to be up on all of the discussion, as it all disappears into oblivion after the fact.
2) The idea you’re talking about, would be taking discussions offline (as far as a2f2a would be concerned), which would cause much segregation of all of it.
3) In a chatroom, there’s no way to regulate everyone’s input in an orderly fashion, in the event of multiple “speakers” trying to “talk over” everyone else they’re at odds with, and the total input never follows proper chronology (posts get scrambled and displayed in the wrong order).
I see it doing a lot of harm, and very little good.
______________________________
One other thought, concerning a “video link”…
Besides having some of the inherent problems of chat, not all of us are able to contribute to a format in which we need to either display our real faces, or use our real voices.
Yes, we’re having out problems, but my advice is still “keep plugging”. Keep plugging, and continue to encourage other artists to start adding to the conversation. Without them, what improvement could a chatroom possibly bring?
All any of that is going to do is kill any future effectiveness of this site, and leave us all with nothing to work with. You need to keep all the input together.
December 10th, 2009 at 7:53 pm
@Devil
I have to disagree with you on this one. While a chat room is not a be all and end all, I really don’t see any harm in having it. It’s not like any one who doesn’t like it would be forced to use it. Meeting times could be posted, Jon could say that Indiana and him would be on at a certain day and time so if people wanted to they could drop by the chat room then. I see it more as an occasional use page that in no way would interfere with the regular forum posts and replies that are the meat and potatoes of this site. I say put it up and let the people here decide, if no one likes it no one will visit it.
December 10th, 2009 at 7:59 pm
In regard to Gregg’s first comment in this post, I’ve always thought it would be neat to compile an encyclopedia of different ideas/viewpoints and corresponding arguments (in favor of) people have on the various issues on a site like this for easy reference and comparison.
December 10th, 2009 at 10:18 pm
@Monkey:
“I see it more as an occasional use page that in no way would interfere with the regular forum posts and replies that are the meat and potatoes of this site.”
I absolutely see where you’re coming from. But while that may seem true to a certain extent, it’s also possible it could become a “preferred” avenue of conversation for some.
This lends itself to the question of how much participation can you “divert” from this site, before doing so defeats the site? What IF the “chat” DOES becomes popular?
There’s also the issue of lurkers who are following and sitting on the fence about coming in. If you start having some of your best thoughts disappearing over IRC, the lurkers will never see them. Chat IS, after all, a much less “public” forum, and lurkers are not going to sign up (which they’d absolutely have to, I’m sure) just to keep lurking.
The one thing I can’t ignore about a public web page is that everyone sees everything that everybody posts (including search engines), and it doesn’t disappear, allowing everyone to scan through anything they’ve missed, and catch up on that which happened before they discovered the site.
The more that stays permanent and visible, the better for this site’s goals.
I still do lots of IRC, and other chat. I look at the formats, and their capabilities, and I just can’t see how it would solve any of the difficulties we’re looking at right now. It’s just another way of doing the same thing, except…
1) it’s temporary
2) needs registration for all participants (at least, I’ve never seen a multi-participant chat format that worked without it)
3) only those that are logged in are able to see who’s talking about what at that time
4) it’s less “orderly” – the conversations get out of control far more easily. Multiple people are simultaneously typing into it, resulting in multiple conversations scattered line-by-line amongst each other. Many people find that more confusing. (Could exasperate one existing problem)
Naturally, this is purely opinion on my part.
Your mileage may vary, of course.
December 10th, 2009 at 11:07 pm
@Devil
I hear you, I still would like to give it a try as a supplementary thing. Ultimately this site is controlled by Jon and Billy, if the chat room began to denigrate the site in that people started ignoring the forum section they could always shut it(chat) down. It’s not like once it’s up it’s engraved in stone. I came up with the idea as Jon liked Indiana’s idea for a video conference, but implementation of that didn’t seem easy, plus not everyone has a vidcam connected to their computer, I know I don’t. I agree with you, the heavy lifting needs to be done at the forums, but sometimes a little instant back and forth isn’t bad either.
I actually wanted to start with something a lot simpler than what you were talking about. http://www.linuxuser.at/chat/index.html
As I said in an email I sent to Jon, I consider this an alpha, something very easy to throw up. I don’t think Jon would, and I KNOW I don’t want to bust balls implementing a more complex script till the water has been tested. Assuming there is at least a little interest I’d like to see it replaced by a script that had an admin feature so trolls could get booted as well as recording conversations to a log file so if by chance any good ideas do come up they could be reposted for all to see. I don’t know nearly as much as you do so maybe I’m pipe dreaming, but as the saying goes, I want to swing the bat.
December 11th, 2009 at 7:48 am
I think there are plugins that allow able/disable features for live chat and live videos. So, it could be used as something which is time specific. Like, Jon and Billy might say “hi guys, we’re going to do a live chat together to clear some of the points up at 6pm on Thursday EST for example and then everyone could come and have a chat. Then, afterwards they can disable the chat room/video chat and post it on the site for people who couldn’t make it to comment on. The other advantage of a video chat might be that Jon could upload it to an a2f2a video channel on various video services. If the first couple times it goes well, it will hopefully help draw more artists in.
December 11th, 2009 at 9:56 am
@Indianna
I hear you, the major reason I suggested the very simple chat script for a starter is Jon is pretty busy right now and that script I gave the link to can be set up in under 5 min. While it has no specific feature for being enabled/disabled that could be easily done by re-naming/or moving the html file, then the link to it wouldn’t work till the name was changed back again.
December 11th, 2009 at 10:15 am
@Billy
I disagree with that. From what I read out of this post there are artists who don’t want to come on because they don’t like the fact that there is debate going on. Musicians adverse to debate? WTF is up with that? Every band I’ve ever been in “debate” was par the course, and it was usually a lot more nasty than anything seen here.
Indiana and John Barron both pointed out that there is a diversity of opinions from the p2p crowd, we are not all marching in lockstep, with the exception of three strikes and a net tax/levy which gets a thumbs down from all of us.
Why are they waiting for us to build a consensus? Wouldn’t it make more sense to join now and be part of the consensus, rather than just jumping on after it has been done for them? As there is diversity of opinion among the p2p crowd I have no doubt there is diversity among musicians, yet by continuing silence artists varying opinions are not heard here. All we hear is you and Indiana(BTW that is not meant as a criticism, thank you both for being here), as well as the FAC’s backing a three strikes policy.
December 11th, 2009 at 4:27 pm
@Monkey:
“Why are they waiting for us to build a consensus? Wouldn’t it make more sense to join now and be part of the consensus…”
BINGO!! I applaud you!
I don’t buy this “Look what they’re doing to Indiana!” crap they’re using as an excuse to label us. Geez! Even Indy says she’s fine with the way it’s going. (Even *I* believe that!)
Besides, if they think she’s being “victimized”, why are they content to sit back and watch? Why not come to the “defense” of a peer?! If we’re so bad, why doesn’t one of the others come in and completely UNLOAD on us?
Maybe some do need to get something off their chests. Maybe if they did, they’d feel better. In that light, I’d welcome it, if they took a swing at me, if for no other reason but to get out that resentment their industry has taught them.
While I may not appear to “get along” with Indiana, I don’t mean her any actual malice, and I simply KNOW she’s completely aware of that. I do give her mega points to her for continuing to participate, despite our “disagreements”, and keep pluggin’.
That IS what this site’s about. We’re all frustrated because WE CARE about the mission, and get very passionate about those things that have caused a huge divide between our two worlds.
If we weren’t serious about the eventual consensus we WILL reach, we’d have no steady participants. With the exception of Indiana, it would appear ALL the ones who keep coming back are fans, not artists.
There can be no “consensus” between two parties with only one of them present. We’ve had a couple of “drive-bys” from a few artists, and though they didn’t stick around, that’s still okay. What a few of them were able to inject into the conversation was very enlightening, for both “sides”.
December 11th, 2009 at 6:41 pm
@monkey True, but, I think DA does have a point about how it could detract from the substance of the site. Actually, the WP plugins are usually dead easy to integrate. I think that the one Jon linked to above has the enable/disabe feature and there was also a video one on the list. But, yeah, I see what you mean. If he wants, I can install it (or any of us can).
December 11th, 2009 at 6:58 pm
@Monkey and @DA Well, I know that artists are reading these posts because I’ve had a good few send me messages on myspace, FB, Kerchoonz, etc. There are a lot of details that the artists actually don’t understand very well about most of these issues being brought up. So, they are talking amongst themselves on the sidelines. I think there needs to be a more direct outreach in order to get artists on board. One way would be for Billy to send out another message to FAC members. So far, I have only had one message from FAC HQ mentioning that A2f2a exists. (And, you know, people need to be reminded over and over again before they are prompted to ‘join in’. It’s rule number one for ‘marketing’… expose, expose, expose.) The other thing is perhaps gearing some of the content towards more artist-centric ideas. (for example, the latest post from Jon about the band who used google street view would be a good link to send to artists that we know.) I will make sure we prepare an outreach message on Kerchoonz to our artists. If we all posted some links with interesting ‘tag lines’ in places that we know artists frequent, we’ll probably see more aritsts jumping on board. Since Jon has p2p net, it’s been easier to get his readership involved here. But, it would be great if Billy bombarded the FAC to participate more (hint hint)
December 11th, 2009 at 7:25 pm
just as an aside that I think we all need to be sensitive about whenever we do lure more artists in is the fact that their livelihoods (as they were) are in a more volatile financial position than ever (and as you probably know, musicians have to sweat and work harder and longer than most vocations in order to get into the black). A couple of days ago I read an interview with Pink who is amongst the highest earners for live shows having raked in 50 million (obviously, it’s not Pink who is making the 50 million, it’s the label, promotion, managers, et al) and she made the statement that “the music industry is so dire right now that if I wasn’t in the position to be able to tour, I’d be sending my resume back to MacDonalds” she went on to say that she worked at Macdonalds prior to becoming a ‘pop star’. Ok, Pink has had a very successful career, and the vast majority of musicians are not in Pink’s position; but, she’s being very honest and she’s at what most people would consider to be ‘the top’. For the money invested in promoting her, she’s paying it back to her ‘investors’ (the labels)
(OK, I know that you guys all know this already), but, it’s important for us all to remember that with most business, unless you are extremely wealthy and can afford to take risks, you have to rely on proving income streams and raising investment in order to get your feet off the ground. You have to give up a ’stake’ (equity or copyright in the case of music). So, many of the musician’s in the FAC have done this ‘exchange’. They’ve given up some of their rights in order to receive publicity and they ultimately have to answer to their ’shareholders’ or ‘board members’ (e.g. their label). So, they may get emotional if you tell them first thing that ‘copies’ are virtually worthless or that a focus on selling isn’t going to work anymore. Some of them (most of them) haven’t been working on new models and haven’t really come to terms with the internet. They’re whole life revolved around shifting units for a long while. It’s only really been this past year that I’ve sat in meetings with the labels and they haven’t said “hey, we still have a healthy sales business here, why should we let new web models canabalise our profits.” For the labels and their artists, it’s only been with the current recession that their business model has totally begun to bottom out. We’re talking in the last 12 months or less (10 years post-napster guys!). So, what I mean is, although you guys understand that you can tell ‘me’ things exactly how you think them and that I’m not going to run off in a huff or get upset by it, most artists aren’t going to react in the same way and many of them simply won’t understand right away. (I know you know this as well, but, artists have very fragile egos and it takes a while for them to have the confidence to come out and ‘tell it like they feel’ sometimes unless it’s through their ‘art’.)
just a thought.
xx
December 11th, 2009 at 7:31 pm
@ Indy:
“… and as you probably know, musicians have to sweat and work harder and longer than most vocations in order to get into the black …”
You mean like fire-fighters, teachers, pharmacists, painters, writers, doctors, lawyers, nurses, paramedics, and so on?
It’s taken me 40 years of blood, sweat and tears to get to a position where I don’t have any money.
Cheers!
December 11th, 2009 at 7:38 pm
“I think there needs to be a more direct outreach in order to get artists on board.”
The “flipside” of this (see what I did there?
) is, if artists were participating, they could not only be giving us input in to how to reach them, but posting their own stuff that would incite still more to participate.
I honestly think that if they’re gonna bother to lurk and start asking questions about what they’re reading, they might find their answers better from coming in and asking them, rather than trying to theorize “amongst themselves”.
The aim of this site is obvious. Those artists that are aware of the site and lurking shouldn’t need any further “incentive” to participate, other than the knowledge that their very fans are trying to collectively brainstorm a workable business model that is really all about the ARTISTS’ very livelyhood.
Indy, what have you told these artists were YOUR incentives to join?
December 11th, 2009 at 7:44 pm
“…artists have very fragile egos and it takes a while for them to have the confidence to come out and ‘tell it like they feel’ sometimes unless it’s through their ‘art’.”
So, you’re saying, if we get these people really upset, they’ll write more songs?!
December 11th, 2009 at 7:56 pm
@DA yep, if you get them upset, they’ll probably not participate, but write a song about what they are pissed off about… Ok, I take it all back.. Go at em full on (lol tee heeee.)
yes @jon, like doctors, lawyers, firefighters, however, all those people have vocations that are usually taken more seriously than the ‘musician’ vocation. Like, you know what I mean…lol
December 11th, 2009 at 8:12 pm
I can see some musicians being a little gun shy, but where are the punk/hardcore guys? Are you telling me that some dude who is willing to walk into a mosh pit where people are swinging heavy chains with bicycle locks are scared to come on here? Even if they disagreed with us, you’d think they’d at least want to drop by to say “bugger off ye bloody wankers!!”
December 11th, 2009 at 8:18 pm
@DA I see what you mean about the flipside totally and I completely agree… I just don’t think we’ve done enough ‘outreach’.
“Indy, what have you told these artists were YOUR incentives to join?”
The one’s who I have heard from have asked me questions about copyright (I even had one artist’s dad send me a copy of her deal because retrospectively, her father…who is also a business man, didn’t understand it… and this is not the first artist’s dad I’ve spoken to in the past few years. This is like the 20th.) Most of them simply ask questions like ‘what is three strikes” or “why are they saying we can’t sell our copies anymore”. A group (band) from New York scolded me and asked me why I am bothering to speak with p2p people because all they want to do is rip artists off. A group from Italy told me that they think p2p is a great technology but didn’t understand why people are reluctant to a royalty system. A group from Manchester said “hey Indy, it’s great to see you fighting our corner”.
How do I answer them? I’ve simply asked them to come and have a read and join in. I’ve explained to them that I’m not ‘fighting anyone’s corner’. It’s a mission to try to better understand your beliefs and see where they ‘gel’ with ‘our beliefs’. (remember, most musicians are pretty annoyed because they ‘think’:
a) get ripped off from their label deal but take the chance anyway
b) get ripped off by their distributor
c) ripped off by their manager
d) feel like everyone thinks musicians are second-class citzens
e) feel like websites are ripping them off and taking advantage of them
f) think that promotors are constantly taking the piss.
g) are fearful of losing their ‘reputation’ if they decide to enter the ring and take a few punches.
Basically, artists are sometimes wimps these days. Partly due to the way that musician’s have been portrayed in the media and partly due to the way people who have opinions are treated via the new digital blogsphere. Either way, they seem to be fearful. And a lot of them think that the labels and the film industry will ’sort everything out for them’. Grief. It’s not very warm and fuzzy is it (lol).
So far, I’ve sent out a sample of 500 musicians who I have regular ‘conversation’ with (usually I send them something I’ve found that I think is helpful for example e.g. how to get gigs or how to follow-up on your royalties if you think something isn’t right.) So, I sent them some links and asked them some personal questions about how they are getting on. And since I’ve had this ongoing conversation with them since like 2005, they feel comfortable. I think we really need some of the bigger artists to step in (like Billy and radiohead and some of the guys who have broken away from their deals). Most of my artist friends have deals with either major labels or independents or they are unsigned. The one’s who have deals are worried about stepping out of line with their labels. It’s different with me I care, but not that much. I’ve been doing the various things that I do for so long that I don’t worry about it. As long as I’m honest and as long as it’s towards a positive goal, who cares if I get burned at the stake. If you’re creative and persistent, you’ll always find a way through. That’s just how I see things. And I can be a real pain in the arse (as you know) but, it’s meant in a good way
x
December 11th, 2009 at 8:48 pm
@DA oops, I avoided your question (soz). You asked, my motivation for joining Well, I got a message from the FAC and came and had a wee wander about and simply decided to join in. If I’m honest, it’s because I believe that we can all form a band. It can be heart-breaking, earth shattering, devastating and then finally wonderful if we all work together. The secret is probably trying to understand and work through the differences and realising that we’re all different and all come from various walks of life, but, once we all get through that crucial prejudgement phase, we’ll see that we can all make music together
And, that’s why you joined too! 
xxxx
December 12th, 2009 at 3:21 am
Personally, I think most artists simply grew up with the concept of selling their rights as part and parcel of what was really a “standard procedure” in launching a recording career. It wasn’t really a widely-conscious thought that alternate methods of doing it may be necessary.
I don’t believe they made any real “mistake”. Many “conspiracies” in this world are not immediately seen by those it directly affects.
What did happen was the very same people who were handling the music business also introduced the very technologies that broke their own business model, and there was no turning back after that.
December 12th, 2009 at 3:55 pm
The way it worked in the past (and present) was the person or entity that paid for the sound recordings was the copyright owner of the master recordings (many times that person or entity was the label) and, of course, the artist maintained the publishing (if he/she was the songwriter/composer). Sometimes production companies would record artists and then look for deals with a label. I guess you could look at it as if the label was hiring the artist to do the job of producing a record for which they would give the artist an advance. But, the artist would always need to recoup the advance through sales. The advance also included the marketing budget spent for that artist as well as any promotional materials produced (music videos for example) and likewise, the actual production and distribution costs that were associated. If the artist was successful in recouping their advance, they were paid royalties per sale. If the artist didn’t recoup, they didn’t make any more money. So, in many ways, it was always the label (investor) who took most of the risk. The artist had very little ‘risk’ at stake. So, from that point of view, it was never a very bad deal. But, if the artist was successful, the label stood to make a great deal of money most of the time. But, it’s sort of like, ‘a deal is a deal, take it or leave it’ there are thousands of artists who would like our deal. So, an artist wouldn’t have very much leverage until it was time to renegotiate a new ‘deal’.
December 12th, 2009 at 7:33 pm
“So, an artist wouldn’t have very much leverage until it was time to renegotiate a new ‘deal’.”
I wonder what would happen if a whole pile of artists pulled a “Prince”, all at the same time. (That got him off, didn’t it?!)
December 12th, 2009 at 7:36 pm
From now on I’m the “Commenter Known as Devil’s Advocate”, formerly known as “The Commenter, Formerly Known as The Commenter, Formerly Known As Devil’s Advocate”.
December 12th, 2009 at 8:59 pm
ha ha. it WOULD work if they all changed their names! purrr-fect!
December 13th, 2009 at 2:36 pm
Been done before Prince, anyone remember Flo and Eddie?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flo_&_Eddie
December 13th, 2009 at 4:27 pm
Yes, a major record deal was an enticing proposition. Think about it: you’re a talented teenager and someone is offering to spend a seven-figure sum developing your music. There’s a 5% chance you will make money and be internationally renowned. That someone will lend you the funds for you to keep your side of the bargain, i.e. produce a master recording. If things don’t work out you don’t have to repay the loan. If they do you will repay it from your slice of the proceeds. In a phrase deal-makers savoured as it fell from their lips: the loan (advance) will be non-returnable but fully recoupable.
Who is going to say no to that? Even today with young artists being much more savvy and realising there’s a lot of devil in the detail it is still hard to refuse that kind of patronage. Musicians will only stop signing to majors when the corporations retire from the game unable to come up with any workable alternative to their hundred-year-old business model. The way things are going that is not an unthinkable prospect.
December 13th, 2009 at 6:25 pm
Yeah, the “deal” wasn’t bad from that perspective.
Surely, with the state of today’s labels, they must already be changing the amounts and availabilities of these loans by now. They can’t keep lending exhorbitant amounts out if their bottom lines are suffering.
December 14th, 2009 at 6:25 am
DA hi,
You might be surprised just how few deals were done, even in the boom years. That was because the investment was huge. And the gamble. Someone would win the prize but no one knew who. These days it is questionable whether the prize is worth the gamble.
So yes, things are much more tentative currently. EMI will be regretting its Robbie Williams wager and Terra Firma its EMI purchase. Who didn’t know that was a bad idea. Having written off the entire investment it’s almost amusing to see Terra Firma threatening to sue its bankers for encouraging the purchase in the first place. Disingenuous of course. Just corporate boys playing corporate boys’ games.
December 14th, 2009 at 8:39 am
Hi Clark, I’m glad you are still commenting!
I do have a question. A friend of mine has been in the music biz for 20 years. He was telling me that when they give you the advance, if your album flops or not, you have to pay that money back.
Is this true that no matter what you’re on the hook for the money they “loan” you?
My friend doesn’t bother with labels, he just does his own thing, playing cover gigs as solo acoustic and recording with his own funds.
I once asked him “You have more talent than most on the radio, why are you not out there trying to get rich?” His reply “I am paying off a house I own, a car I own, and I’m happy. I’ve already won.”
December 14th, 2009 at 1:05 pm
Robert, There are some unusual circumstances where an advance might be repaid but in general, no. It’s a sunk cost by labels and publishers written off when an artist is dropped which most of them eventually are.
Your friend hits the spot when he says “I’ve already won”. He has found his own way for music-making to be an integral part of his life. That is what most do and is consistent with a point I made in an earlier post: that the great majority of people in music have nothing whatsoever to do with big deal copyrights. The future is with them.
December 14th, 2009 at 7:02 pm
@robert and @Clark Yep, that’s right. Normally only the label would take the risk. Same with any investor agreement in business. The investor takes the risk and in the case of the labels, as long as the artist has fulfilled the commitments outlined in their deal (e.g. producing the sound recordings and being available for all reasonable promotional efforts, in case of no success, it’s the label/investor that loses the money invested.
I think it’s really good if artists can retain their rights and DIY. Sometimes it means raising capital from investors, but, if the artist sets up their own label, it usually means that they can retain their rights, but, they would pay a portion of the money they make to investors. It’s a better position to be in. However, the truth be told, in many countries, it is very difficult to get the media (e.g. radio, TV, PR) behind a project unless it’s coming from a major label or a ‘credible’ independent label. If you were to do a study of the radio 1&2 playlist in the UK, you’ll see how that works. There is also a situation where even local and regional radio only play music that is on the national playlists and they are centrally controlled (in the UK). It used to be that a local or regional radio station could play music from that region even if it wasn’t on the national playlist. In those days, artists/bands were able to ‘chart’ and it helped them when they did regional & local tours. The bigger labels have kind of isolated that promotion over the past 10 years. Part of the problem has been that the music industry (labels) started to be too ‘trend focused’. But, that’s just my opinion. I think that it’s better to DIY and work on your own business. It’s harder and takes more time, but, at least it’s authentic and prevents you from being ‘put into a box’ artistically (IMO)
December 16th, 2009 at 10:41 pm
” It used to be that a local or regional radio station could play music from that region even if it wasn’t on the national playlist. In those days, artists/bands were able to ‘chart’ and it helped them when they did regional & local tours. The bigger labels have kind of isolated that promotion over the past 10 years ”
And now, they are using scare tactics and fear mongering over ‘losses’ due to sharing to do the same thing to the internet. The goal is to similarly grant/deny artist access to the promotional and selling potential of the internet. ‘Licenses’ and ‘Levy’s ‘ are designed to make the internet model resemble the ‘radio’ model. We can all see what that has done as far as variety and originality, along with still being able to screw the crap out of artists. In 10 years are we going to fondly remember when anyone with an inexpensive recording setup could be heard around the world on the ‘net’ ?