The Big 4 corporate record labels are primary drivers behind the Three Strikes and you’re Off The Net business plan which, it’s just been revealed, would cost British taxpayers half a billion pounds.
It’s being floated by Peter ‘Mandy’ Mandelson as part of the Digital Economy plan.
But it’s a purely corporate effort.
Vivendi Universal (France), Sony (Japan), EMI (Britain), and Warner Music (US) repeatedly cite the welfare of musicians in their excuses for demanding the implementation of the scheme, and a major element in corporate PR efforts to popularise it in the UK has been, and still is, the support of the Featured Artists’ Coalition (FAC).
Last month I ran an open letter to the FAC and, as the end of 2009 approaches, I’m running it one more time with the added message >>>
If you want to retain the small amount of goodwill which remains after your betrayal of the people who buy your music, you’d better act. And fast.
We don’t depend on you. But you DO depend on us.
100%.
“Dear (please see below),” I wrote, going on >>>
The chances of Britain’s Labour government retaining power in the upcoming elections are zero. It tries to present itself as forward-looking and progressive, but its continuing efforts to promote corporate entertainment industry interests above those of the people plainly demonstrate it has no clue about what’s happening in the digital 21st century, or how to function within it.
Your members, as well as artists from around the world, must make it clear to your fans, the people who keep you going, that you absolutely will not countenance the government-backed corporate Three Strikes scheme to turn them into criminals.
The inaugural meeting of the U.K.’s Featured Artists’ Coalition (FAC) in London resulted in a unanimous vote among its members against any measures that criminalize file-sharing, said Billboard in March, going on »»»
As well as discussing the general aims and logistics of the new body, there was also a unanimous show of hands against the idea of criminalizing file-sharers, according to those present.
There was concern about any legal body taking action against fans who were involved in file-sharing and preventing them getting broadband access to be informed about the activities of their favorite acts.
Today, still quoting Billboard, I posted on a2f2.com which, not at all incidentally, is short for artists-to-fans-to-artists »»»
The issue came up as artists discussed a planned response to the forthcoming Digital Britain report, the interim version of which has proposed a Rights Agency to enforce anti-piracy measures. In France, legislation is being debated to bring in a three-strikes system to potentially cut off broadband connections for those who infringe copyright a measure to which the FAC is opposed.
Then, six months later, from the FAC »»»
Our meeting … voted overwhelmingly to support a three-strike sanction on those who persistently download illegal files, sanctions to consist of a warning letter, a stronger warning letter and a final sanction of the restriction of the infringer’s bandwidth to a level which would render file-sharing of media files impractical while leaving basic email and web access functional.
What an about-face.
All of the attention is presently on Britain but, as I’ve said many times before, the Three Strikes plan is international with Vivendi Universal, EMI, Warner Music and Sony Music, and Disney, News Corp, Time Warner, Viacom, NBC Universal and Sony Pictures, trying to foist it on governments around the world.
I believe artists — the FAC in particular — must come out firmly and definitely against the Three Strikes farce.
So please, hold another emergency meeting and this time, return to your original position.
It’ll take cojones, but it’ll be the strategically and tactically smart thing to do.
Even if it’s adopted, three strikes won’t last. Anywhere. It can’t.
And the backlash against anyone who supports it will be enormous.
We love you. But do you love us?
Show us you do.
______________________________________________
Tim Rice-Oxley (Keane)
Jamie Turner
Adriano Buffone (Raygun)
Allan Bradbury
Helienne Lindvall
Tony Crean
Andrew Laidlaw (Luck Soul)
Isard Haasakker
Tony Morrelli (The Fire Escapes)
Jean-Baptiste Pilon (The Fire Escapes)
Mark Headley (The Fire Escapes)
Hal Ritson (The Young Punx)
Billy Bragg
Ben Ward
Karl Harrison
Howard Jones
Tjinder Singh (Cornershop)
Phil Simpson
Atheen
Steve Jones
John Reynolds
Sandie Shaw (via phone)
David Rowntree (Blur)
Ed O’Brien (Radiohead)
Alan Sharland (The Hoosiers)
Martin Skarendahl (The Hoosiers)
Steven Hogarth (Marillion)
Mark Kelly (Marillion)
Guy Chambers
Patrick Wolf
Sam Duckworth (Get Cape Wear Cape Fly)
Jamie Allen
Toby Sebastian
James Kelly
Beryl Marsden
George Jones
Ross Millard (The Futureheads)
Stax Dempsey
Rona Sentinar
Fran Healy (Travis)
Karl Addy
Nathan Taylor (The Young Punx)
Josh Allegro
Ali Howard (Lucky Soul)
David Arnold
Lucy Pullin (The Fire Escapes)
Annie Lennox (via phone)
Lily Allen (Not a Member of the FAC)
George Michael
Nick Mason (Pink Floyd)
Signed After the meeting;
The Music Producers Guild
John B
Claudia Brucken (Propaganda)
Rick Wilde
Zita McHugh
M B Gordy
Mohammed Yahya
Jon Hopkins
Barry Coffing
Vinny Peculiar
David Ravden
Nik Ledgard (Dry Riser)
Matthew Lintott (Dry Riser)
Pete Bembridge (Dry Riser)
Jack Oram (Dry Riser)
Chad Mcloughlin
Gina Langton
Tony Christie
Sean Fitzgerald
Irving David (DWFM Beckman)
Julianne Reagan (All About Eve)
Stuart Ongley (SGO Publishing)
Judy Dyble
Jonas Kroon
Irwin Sparkes (The Hoosiers)
Robbie Williams
Robert Vale
Jerry Vale
David Cloyd
Rob Boyd (The Hillfields)
Sharon Corr
George Sarah
Bob Hansmann
Rich Wilde
Milinda Allen
Dr Robert (The Blow Monkeys)
Dirk Henry (The Kokoon)
Ben Beer (Sealife)
Chris White (Composer)
Producers Managers Group (PMG)
Marco Pirroni
Brian Campbell (Clinic)
Morty Buffham (Manager of UK Heights)
Andrew Kremer (Composer)
Sharon Dean (Respect Music)
Sarah McQuaid
Gary Clark (Artist, songwriter, producer)|
Marc Marot (Manager)
Keith A. Newstead
Blake Morgan (Engine company Records)
Tom Green (’Another Fine Day’)
Neil Preston (MP Records)
John Verity
Bart Schram (Mindgames)
Koen Gisen (An Pierlé & White Velvet)
Darren Hayes (Savage Garden)
Scott Coe (The Haunted Aquarium)
Miranda Dickinson
Noora Noor
Ali Hakimi (Bush Studios)
Colin MacIntyre (Mull Historical Society)
Rik Hudson (Violet Bones)
David Blake (JFXmusic)
Jo Hilditch (Hilda)
Alastair Blackwood (Motion Picture Soundtrack)
Oscar Mancino
Kevin Hewick
Sean Genockey (Music Producer)
Sam Obernik
Patrick Weyland-Smith (Patrick And The Deep End)
Matthew Lee (Lapskin)
Colin Waterson
Simon Emmerson (The Imagined Village)
Helge Krabye (Homeless Balloon)
Terence McLeod
Fiona Branson
Jake Morley
Jon Attwood (Yellow6)
Adam Donen
Matthew Seligman
Alex Callier (Hooverphonic)
James Reynolds (Public Symphony)|
Dobs Vye (Public Symphony)
Benjamin Evans (Deal Maker Records)
Lyndon Coyne (Bandito Records)
Sofia Hagberg (End of the Road Festival)
James Blunt
Findlay Brown
Brad Rabuchin
KT Tunstall
Kelly Dickson (Mamafeelgood)
Curtis Roush (Film Music Producer)
Mark Muggeridge (Journalist and artist manager)
Sandy Dworniak (This Much Talent)
Tom Jones
Amy Studt
Sam Hammond (Ten Bears)
Russell Lewis Warby (William Morris Endeavor Entertainment)
Carlos Ruivo
David Gilmour
Jools Holland
Ulrich Schnauss
Ken Andrew (Middle of the Road)
Joseph Mount (Metronomy)
Luke Soloman (Freaks)
Tom Shore (Britten Sinfonia)
Neil Tennant (Pet Shop Boys)
Chris Lowe (Pet Shop Boys)
Kirsty Hawkshaw
Glenn Tipton (Judas Priest)
Rob Halford (Judas Priest)
Jayne Andrews (manager for Judas Priest)
Gill Vance (singer/songwriter)
Simon Reid & Louise Stanners (Reid & Stanners)
James Carrington
Tim McConway (Booger Red/The Lunar Society)
James Mathe (Monasteryo)John (JJ) Johnson
Disclaimer: This my purely personal view.
Jon Newton – music fan
December 28th, 2009 at 1:55 pm
Hiya!
New to the site and would like to see a list of all artists who are into this. Alphabetically, please and thanks.
December 28th, 2009 at 2:09 pm
” If you want to retain the small amount of goodwill which remains after your betrayal of the people who buy your music, you’d better act. And fast.
We don’t depend on you. But you DO depend on us.
100%. ”
At least until they get the levy/tax whatever it’s called today pushed through. Then they will have no reason to worry or care about customer or fan backlash for anything the RIAA does in their name. After that, they don’t have to care.
No wonder it’s pushed so hard.
December 28th, 2009 at 2:22 pm
Jon, I think you know the answer as well as I do. FAC isn’t going to change it’s opinion. From what I understand they used Lily Allen getting an extremely negative response from the internet crowd when she came out in support of three strikes as an excuse for the 180 on that issue. Personally, I think that is a very lame excuse for a complete reversal. If three strikes was wrong before Lily Allen, her getting a hostile response from supporting it doesn’t suddenly make it right. Furthermore, the three strikes proposal is a VERY hostile act against fans, why would anyone be surprised when anyone supporting it was not greeted with accolades? It would not surprise me if the reversal had more to do with bucking under to their paymasters at the riaa.
December 28th, 2009 at 4:21 pm
As a UK music fan, I must admit that I’ve been disappointed by the lack of condemnation of the three strikes law, especially now they’ve become even more Draconian.
The FAC’s support of Lily Allen is ridiculous when you consider that when she first started out, she promoted her music online by offering a free mixtape download of her music interspersed with other artists. (If the three strikes law she promotes existed then, she’d have been off the net.)
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090923/1409046297.shtml
Lily also ridiculously claims she doesn’t mind people buying burned copies of her CDs if people pay for them. As Musician Steve Lawson says in his excellent Lily Allen Invents The Criminal Commons License” blog article:
December 28th, 2009 at 5:40 pm
Didn’t Billy mention something about trying to reverse the FAC’s position on 3-strikes? I guess it will make it look like they are changing their minds a bit, but, I think that now would be a good time for the FAC to have a read-thru the Digital Britain clauses and make a statement (preferably against clauses 10, 11, 17 and potentially announcing that they don’t believe 3-strikes is the answer.) They could always state that their position has changed since Digital Britain wasn’t published when they made the Air Statement. It may even be a good PR move to do so?
December 28th, 2009 at 8:06 pm
Personally, I don’t understand the mission of the FAC, or where Billy actually fits in.
On the one hand, we have Billy, who says that he is just hammering everyone to realize that “there’s no technical solution”, and that artists “need to embrace the current technologies and their users” rather than criminalize them.
On the other hand, we have the rest of the FAC, who obviously doesn’t agree with any of this. According to them, all it took was the people calling out Lily Allen, or the filesharers on this site “victimizing Indiana”, to make them decide to support “3 Strikes” and other anti-consumer ideas.
Yet, it’s Billy that’s making all the appearances with governments and the like, as the “FAC representative”, and we see very little statements being made by others in the group.
I find this odd, for a “coalition” of any kind.
a2f2a contributors, who are just individuals and not part of an organization, have been accused of not wanting to reach any real consensus. Yet, this artists’ coalition seems to have a different agenda than its supposed leader.
December 29th, 2009 at 6:37 pm
@DA It does seem strange. But, the FAC is only a few months older than A2F2A, so, I guess there will be growing pains.
Hey, stop that with the ‘victimizing’ stuff!! (lol…jus kiddin’, You can victimize me all you like. ’smile’)
I wish I had gone to the Air studios meeting because it would be good to know what they based their decision upon. The 180 turn seemed odd. Although, there seemed to be a sense of urgency to make a ’statement’ at the time. This was the email that was sent out:
Since then, I haven’t had much correspondence from the FAC except for an email from Billy telling members about A2f2a.
I don’t think that Billy meant that there is an unwillingness to come to a consensus, I think he was more pointing out the ‘need’ for us to come to a consensus and that he felt perhaps that the conversations were sometimes agressive (hence the ‘poor Indy’ comment).
I like the Chinese proverb ‘The gem cannot be polished without friction.’ There are obviously issues that we don’t agree on, but, that doesn’t mean that there isn’t still a negotiation to be had and a ‘consensus’ to be reached.
In my opinion, there needs to be a chat about what we may be able to realistically achieve or submit as a counter-proposition to this Digital Britain bill (or to ACTA etc.) Maybe Bennett could help us out with that?
December 29th, 2009 at 7:06 pm
@Dreddsnik
your quote:
In a way, it’s probably better for artists not to care about sales or care about ‘customers’ when it comes to their creativity. If you see what I mean, the whole idea of selling music as if it were a product might be better off ‘dead’. I think that if artists were to simply have royalties based upon how much people want to keep listening, it could ‘purify’ music so that it’s not based upon sales. If music is ‘free’ for you to listen to and have access to whenever you want it and you have the opportunity to explore any music you like, it’s a good thing, right? So, If a public license for websites & potentially ISPs who use music were to be put into place, then, indeed, you are right!! Artists wouldn’t have to care about a ‘customer’! I think that’s fantastic actually. Artists shouldn’t be making music to fit a specific ‘customer’. They should be making art. Everything that people complain about these days is how everything seems to sound like everything else and the ‘cookie-cutter 3min 20 second song with the same structures and the same old ‘commercial’ thing.
Allowing artists not to need to ‘care about the customer’, irnonically, could liberate music. Artists or labels or whoever wouldn’t be competing for sales anymore. They would only be looking for your attention. They would only want to be ‘heard’ and yet, they would still be compensated. (Not in the way that it was in the past with huge sums of money via the old sales machine, but, in a more liberated and attentive way.) Somehow, I see that as being really good.
December 30th, 2009 at 5:16 pm
Evenin’ all.
I posted back in October about how ultimately I make music because I love to but that if I want to attempt to ‘earn a living’ from it, I accept that it is my responsibility to do so. What’s this got to do with anything? Well, I’m on that list. Karl Harrison. That’s me
I went to the FAC meetings so my disclaimer is also that I speak solely for myself here. Primarily I don’t want to be shot (metaphorically speaking) for saying anything either attributable to the FAC or not representative of whoever else and so on.
A little background might be useful. I’m not a major label artist, my manager and I set up our own little thing just to get my stuff out there. First 5 track EP just out as a download and I’m aiming for a double album download thingy in March 2010. Ooooh, get me. I *think* there are quite a few people on the list in the same boat, just trying to do their thing and as Indianna says, get your attention.
At the very first meeting back in Feb 2009, Billy said something that really caught my ear, something like “We don’t want to be in a situation in 10 years time when artists are not able to earn a living from doing what they love.” At the time, I thought, “I fear we already are.” There were a lot of murmurs about how illegal downloading was killing music, what was the future of music, other creative endeavours and ultimately what would that mean for our cultural heritage etc.
At subsequent meetings, including the Air Studios one, Billy’s emphasis (as he has re-iterated here) was on the desire to not criminalize file sharing but to establish a workable means whereby ‘artists’ are still able to ‘earn a living’.
I don’t think it’s right of me to postulate on what the major label or government points of view are because, quite simply, I don’t know enough to do so. Better to be silent and thought an idiot than to open my mouth and prove it, right? Or whatever the quote is. Maybe I’m too late already
For me, as an indie musician (the term ‘artist’ I’m still coming to terms with) this whole shebang has been a massive learning curve. I’ve chatted with Steve Lawson via his blog and he’s a fine example of someone doing his own thing and making it work for him. He’s dismissive of the FAC but that didn’t stop him from giving me a ton of advice to try and help me find my own way. Lovely bloke (and a great bass player!)
As I said in my October post, I absolutely accept it is my responsibility if I want to ‘earn a living’ as a musician. As I learn more, yep, I realise there’s more than one way to skin a cat, session work, co-writing and ultimately, releasing my own stuff. That’s what floats my boat, that’s what keeps me up until 2 in the morning and that’s why I’ve just quit my day job. Life’s too short not to
However, somewhere along the line on a purely practical level, I will need to earn *something* from what I do to be able to continue doing it. A simple (if painful heh, heh, heh) economic truth.
Now if it transpires that actually I suck and everyone thinks my work is worthless, I’ll take that on the chin. “So it goes,” as Kurt Vonnegut used to say. If, on the other hand some nutcase is actually willing to pay to hear me sing and play my guitar, then great. I should be able to take advantage of that (in the altruistic sense). As I go on, I’m sure I’ll learn exactly how.
My perception on leaving the FAC meetings was that ultimately, that’s what we were collectively, in the simplest way, trying to achieve. I fully appreciate how that may not come across (and feel free to question my naivete), given the presence of major label artists who have (in some people’s eyes) ‘made their millions’ but, as another guy at the Air meeting said, “Most people have no idea of how much it actually costs to keep a band going.” That is an unavoidable reality and, speaking personally, I absolutely do not think I’m owed a living just because I’m one of those awkward and pretentious creative types
*Perhaps* the perception at the FAC that came across was one of fear that the creation of music (and any other artistic endeavour) was soon to be considered worthless and that the reactionary ‘old guard’ was keen to just keep counting their royalties? Consequently, the FAC sought punitive measures to support the status quo?
Apologies as I tend to waffle. I’m still learning. Be gentle
Aside from all that, I genuinely hope the debate continues productively as I think we will make it workable in the end. Can musicians without an audience truly be said to exist?!
Wishing you all the best for 2010 and keep up the good work.
December 30th, 2009 at 6:57 pm
@ Inksysmudge
“I genuinely hope the debate continues productively as I think we will make it workable in the end. Can musicians without an audience truly be said to exist?!”
It will, and they can’t.
Cheers, mate, and all the best to you in the new year as well …
… and to everyone else, of course …
December 30th, 2009 at 11:24 pm
“Can musicians without an audience truly be said to exist?!”
@Inky:
Certainly not!
And, hopefully the reverse won’t happen here, either!
December 31st, 2009 at 11:53 am
” Can musicians without an audience truly be said to exist?! ”
Hmm, I have to disagree with the previous consensus.
A musician is a musician, whether or not an audience exists or
appreciates his work. Very few have ever heard any of my classical
piano compositions ( one that earned me a scholarship and the
Chicago Conservatory of Music, turned it down .. me=idiot ) and
that doesn’t mean I am any less musician or artist and I can say
that I do, in fact exist.
You can’t make a living without an audience, however. That’s the difference.
As for how one defines ‘making a living’, that’s each individuals own idea.
Thanks for sounding off. It’s nice to here from a FAC artists that is not inured in the system.
December 31st, 2009 at 11:54 am
grrr my life for an ‘edit’ function.
Sentence should read ..
( one that earned me a scholarship at the
Chicago Conservatory of Music, I turned it down .. me=idiot )
December 31st, 2009 at 2:36 pm
Yes Dreddsnik, I agree. An artist does not need an audience in order to exist. Art needs an artist in order to exist, but that’s a different matter.
December 31st, 2009 at 3:17 pm
lol, @Dreddsnik is correct, a tree that falls in the forest when nobody is around isn’t heard, but it still exists:) teeee Happy New year:)
December 31st, 2009 at 3:25 pm
@Dredd:
I think in the context of what we’re doing here, an artist “needs” an audience that supports his efforts. I’m sure it’s the financial reliance that was being referred to.
In the same light, the audience “needs” to have artists as well.
Happy New Year!
January 1st, 2010 at 9:13 am
Happy 1st Jan all. I hope it finds you well. The sun is out here and it’s crisp ‘n’ cold. Nice. Worthwhile comments as always and good to see that humour is present.
@Dredd:
I am reassured that you do in fact exist
On occasion I fear we are just playthings of a higher power with a sick sense of humour.
January 2nd, 2010 at 10:47 pm
It’s part of the mindset that the industry desperately NEEDS everyone to believe .. that the death of the ‘industry’ means the end of music altogether. They have to make sure people forget that artists and musicians have existed since people were in caves beating on drums. Music and those that make it have been around for much longer than the ‘industry’ and will continue to exist, even if the ‘industry’ were to vanish overnight. We must never forget that, and we must make sure that no one else forgets that as well.