Happy New Year everyone. To make real progress in 2010, we need to change the format. Many of you will know how Jon and I hooked up. He wrote a post on p2pnet commenting on the FAC’s dispute with Lily Allen over downloading and I found it through google/news. I responded with a few comments and so began the dialogue that led to the founding of a2f2a.
Jon felt moved to comment because of the debate stirred up by Lily Allen’s attack on the FAC’s position on illegal downloading. Lily would never have made her comments – and crucially the BPI would not have been quick to put it’s publicity machine into overdrive in support of Lily – if it had just been Billy Bragg saying that illegal downloading is a form of promotion. I say that all the time and nobody takes much notice.
It was the fact that this point was being made by a coalition of artists that forced the music industry to engage with us. By organising around a consensual position, the FAC were able to set the agenda for discussion. When artists speak out singularly in interviews against the persecution of fans, no one from the BPI feels the need to go on the offensive; when artists get organised, then they become a force to be reckoned with.
When I co-founded this website with Jon Newton, I envisaged a coalition of artists and p2p users that would be capable of setting the agenda for the debate about how artists can make a living while ensuring that fans get the access that they want and are treated fairly. So far, we have not been able to find the kind of consensus necessary to develop positions on these issues.
Without such a consensus, we remain a bunch of disparate voices unable to influence the debate beyond this website. Are people satisfied with merely having the space to sound off or would we like to actually try to influence the debates that are going on?
I have come to feel that the format of a2f2a, with the constant posting of new subjects, makes it difficult to pursue issues to some sort of resolution. What is our stance on copyright, for instance? After all those posts back in October, what was our conclusion?
Is there a way that we can tackle issues directly, using some sort of voting procedure to build consensus? At the moment we just have people posting comments, which is interesting, but it needs to build to something that we can use to organise around, to say this is what we stand for.
That’s how the FAC sets the agenda. It takes a position – which may or may not be one that you agree with – and this gives a lead to the media.
So, instead of waiting for everyone else to turn up, lets hammer out some rallying cries and move this whole agenda on.
Billy Bragg
January 1st, 2010 at 2:47 pm
Hi Billy:
You may have a point, so for starters, how about something along these lines:
We, as the members of a2f2a, oppose any and all attempts to impose the Three Strikes element of entertainment industry’s ACTA plan on people in Britain, or anywhere else; call on the UK government to immediately make it clear that duly elected representatives of the people, and not corporate entertainment industry lawyers and executives, will decide terms and conditions of any Digital Economy plan; demand the UK government immediately withdraws all support of the Three Strikes plan; and, ask that a small committee comprising musicians, music fans, independent and corporate labels and government representatives be immediately set up to discuss ways and means of equitably managing online music distribution.
I emphasise, these are just a few thoughts to get things rolling.
Cheers!
January 1st, 2010 at 6:01 pm
@Billy:
As you can see, a second digest has yet to be posted (where I would have highlighted any points of “agreement”). The ultimate reason being, there simply isn’t any existing consensus between both “factions” of this project. And, the site did “quiet down” on many fronts when you went on tour – no bona fide “new reasoning” entered this site other than Bennett Lincoff’s proposal, and those discussions are just beginning. Though I’ve got one in progress, I’ve had to rethink how I present any digest at this point, as its focus will apparently have to be different.
I’m a little fuzzy on how “format” would have anything to do with this.
There are a number of motivations for posting various articles and viewpoints on a blogsite, such as:
1. To create something that will be caught by a search engine, and bring in anyone who’s interested. (Which you just did.)
2. To spark discussions on the various elements surrounding our mission. (As your post has done, and I’m doing it.)
3. To keep the page from “going stale”, and actively encourage people to continue to shift their focus to ALL those elements, thus keeping the “bigger picture” alive in their minds. (Otherwise, they WILL often just continue the beat the current “dead horse”, or lose interest, or let a misdirected argument rule the roost.)
4. To allow the introduction of the very “new ideas” you’ve stated you need to see. (Bennett’s proposal could be one of those, and we’re talking about it now, thanks to the posting of “new material”.)
5. To create new pages that collect the views expressed related to the subject material. (Doesn’t always work out that way, but it does accomplish the purpose.)
If people don’t agree on things amongst themselves, it would be a result of them actually not agreeing on things. No site facelift is going to change that. What usually does change things is the introduction of ideas that go “outside” of the existing arguments – things which we could actually call “new” business models.
We could put up a page of “main principles” for people to “vote” on. It could actually be useful. But, at the end of the day, you’re not going to find that “stance” you’re looking for that could be said to “represent a2f2a”. And, if people can’t agree amongst themselves on the key issues, there’s no point in expecting the group to “influence the debate outside this website”.
You have to admit, if people are completely scrapping over a proposal, it would have to be because the proposal relies on too many outdated components with too many existing points of contention. (Otherwise, why else would they still be scrapping about those same old points of contention?!)
I’m not saying the blogsite concept is perfect. Of course it has its limitations. But, if you’re trying to say we’d have achieved agreement on any of this stuff through a different format, medium, or whatever, I can’t support that thinking.
And, I’m not quite sure what kind of “rallying cries” you expected to see or why you’d need them to be “hammered out” at this point. Up until recently, this band we’re playing in could have been called “Billy and the Filesharers” or “Indiana and the Victimizers”. In other words, one artist at a time, arguing with a shitload of P2Pers, mostly over “technical misunderstandings” many aren’t equipped to talk about.
We can try our best to help artists understand the “geek stuff” so people are not arguing over things that don’t work on a technical basis, but as we’ve seen, there are some artists that simply won’t accept even technical truths, and we can’t force them to. We also can’t address the details affecting the performance world (the “other side” of this equation) without the input of the performers.
One or two artists does not constitute a scenario you can demand consensus from, especially when that consensus is intended to be presented in the name of a shitload of artists that haven’t even shown up to vouch for any “stance” you claim your coalition intends to take.
Let’s be fair here. The “publicity machine” came out FOR Lily Allen, as she was basically parroting the popular and desired propaganda. It was the FAC’s SUPPORT of Lily Allen and an “about-face” on the “anti-piracy issues” that encouraged them to load that machine. BPI is talking because of THAT, and not because of some previous position your members presently don’t appear to support.
One thing you already know is that there IS a consensus within “our camp” about ACTA, 3 Strikes, net neutrality, etc. and part of that consensus is that the FAC needs to demonstrate a compatible stance with that for us to do any “moving forward”.
To date, the only ones who have any idea what the FAC members are even thinking are you and the FAC. And, no consensus is possible between two groups who, for the most part, haven’t even been talking with each other.
You say one thing, while everything we’re allowed to see points to something else. You may represent the FAC, and know different from what we have no choice but to perceive. But, if the situation were reversed, and “our side” only presented one or two “representatives” to discuss the whole debate with the entire FAC, the artists might very well be more “anti-P2P” coming out than they were going in, and it would be “our” fault for leaving you no alternative.
Oh, and welcome back, eh!
January 1st, 2010 at 6:37 pm
” the artists might very well be more “anti-P2P” coming out than they were going in, and it would be “our” fault for leaving you no alternative. ”
Perhaps this is what is intended ?
One never knows.
I have plenty of tinfoil, but not everything that sounds paranoid is wrong.
January 1st, 2010 at 6:38 pm
@ DA: PLEASE don’t take this as a crit against you, but I deliberately didn’t get into the definition of format, and whether or not the “constant posting of new subjects” is a serious distraction. For the record, I don’t think it is.
But coming up with a statement we can all agree on — that’s everyone here, of course — would be a useful step forward; something we could use to generate interest elsewhere.
Billy may not have read Bennett’s proposals (he’s only just started responding to thoughts expressed here, and told me there’s more to come) but to me, they’re exactly the kind of thing we’re looking for here. On that, in case you missed it, Billy, go here http://a2f2a.com/2009/12/11/%e2%80%98the-music-industry-is-in-free-fall%e2%80%99/
Cheers!
January 1st, 2010 at 7:19 pm
@Jon:
I quite agree that any consensual statements are beneficial, when they reflect truthful sentiments. And, I believe you gave him such an example.
What I wrote said nothing to the contrary. It was more of a plea to clarify what “consensus” we’re talking about – is it something we all actually do agree upon, or is it something we’re all gonna *pretend* we agree upon in order to be seen by “others” as “something to work with”?
Billy made the statement that sparked this…
I think it’s only natural that we ask if he’s expecting something like that from the fans, as many of us don’t feel that style of thinking by the FAC has exactly furthered the cause of net neutrality, the quest for any fair reassessment of the copyright conundrum, or fan respect.
I still stand by my concern that “consensus” can only exist between those that have actively engaged in achieving it, and that there’s no other “agenda” in this post. If I didn’t see a reason to verify that, I simply wouldn’t have presented it.
January 1st, 2010 at 8:46 pm
@DA:
Gotcha.
Cheers!
January 1st, 2010 at 9:31 pm
@Billy
I’m not 100% sure on this, but I think you would like to get some hard numbers on where people stand on issues. Maybe using something like this:
http://www.chipmunk-scripts.com/page.php?ID=14 ?
I’m sure wordpress has some poll plug-ins. No doubt it could be set up so only people who have signed in could vote, same as how the comment system works here.
There may very well be areas where it’s not yet possible to reach a consensus. I think you already know where the p2p crowd’s consensus is on ACTA. FAC also came to a consensus on ACTA/3 strikes, a 180 of what ours is. That needs to change, or agreement on anything else will be difficult. I think there are some things we could agree to disagree on, but ACTA/3 strikes isn’t one of them.
January 1st, 2010 at 11:07 pm
@ Monkey.
I’ll look into it. Feel free to remind me offlist by email
“a 180 of what ours is”
Also 180 of their own original statement, let’s not forget.
Cheers!
January 2nd, 2010 at 1:43 am
@Dredd:
I know what you mean…
I’m always being accused of being paranoid. I can’t help it if the whole world’s out to get me.
January 2nd, 2010 at 1:44 pm
@Devil & Dredd
Not the world, just large corporations after your cash and governments after your freedom.
January 3rd, 2010 at 3:17 pm
@Billy.
Well, there are a few discussions that do sound like they are beginning to lead towards a consensus, but, personally, I agree with @DA. At the moment, there are simply not enough artists/bands/songwriters on board. Is there any way you could maybe do another out-reach email to the FAC to spark some more interaction from artists?
From what it looks like, nearly everyone here is anti-3-strikes. A lot of people are interested in Bennett Lincolf’s proposal. If it would be possible to frame something as an alternative proposal to 3-strikes that would be more pro-active and beneficial for artists and keep the public on the same team, it looks to me as though Bennett’s proposal might be the basis for a potential consensus statement, maybe?
January 4th, 2010 at 5:29 am
Okay, lets see this proposal.
January 4th, 2010 at 1:12 pm
The choice:
1) Reproduction Monopoly.
2) Music Tax.
3) Free Market.
The incumbent labels reckon there’s still a couple of centuries left in the first option, ultimately to be superseded by cartel ownership of the Internet (as ACTA prepares the way for).
The signed musicians, hankering for a kinder sugar daddy to cosset them, don’t like the prospect of fending for themselves in a free market. Hence it is they who prefer to take the option of tax that pays them a tiny royalty for their popularity, than a market that pays them for the quality of their product. It also appeals to many music lovers (for whom a tax would be a trivial expense) as it seems to avoid being prosecuted for file-sharing.
The third option seems like hard work and appeals most to the fit and free spirited youth, and those idealists who prioritise principle over appeasement.
All proposals can therefore be categorised into “Monopoly, Tax or Market?”
Monopoly: 3-strikes, HADOPI, DRM/DMCA, etc.
Tax: Bennett Lincolf’s proposal, among many others.
Market: Masnick’s ‘Cwf+RtB’ and Kelly’s ‘1,000 True Fans’.
A consensus that a reproduction monopoly is an ineffective anachronism is an inevitability. However, there is going to be a war of ownership for the Internet, i.e. between the publishing cartel, the state, and the people. The cartel wants to control the Internet whether through their amassed monopolies of copyright or outright ownership. The state also wants to control it and will be very happy for an excuse to tax its use. The people simply want to be at liberty to use it as they wish without having to pay for that liberty, either to publishers or the state.
Three powers pulling in three different directions: The Corporation, The State, and The Individual.
The corporation is an artificial construct of the state’s legislature. The state is an artificial construct of the people. All that remains fundamental to nature is the individual and their natural right and liberty to communicate.
I say the individual and the dissolution of privilege is the horse to back, the proper consensus. However, that’s not necessarily the most likely outcome. Either of the other two powers may well become ascendant, given the people are most pliant to persuasion.
January 4th, 2010 at 6:38 pm
Bennett Lincoff’s proposals were indeed very interesting, and he has been kind enough to have a couple of in-depth conversations with me since posting here, both discussing the nature of pirate politics, and also the details of his proposal.
While he approaches things from a different direction to me, and to PPUK, and it’s expressed in slightly different terms, I think I can honestly say that I find very little to dissent to in the proposal – there are only maybe one or two substantive points where we disagree.
Admittedly, those are indeed substantive, however even saying that, it is very interesting and encouraging to see proposals like Bennett’s being introduced to the debate.
January 5th, 2010 at 8:03 am
Does someone want to frame Bennett’s proposals in a simplified form that we can build a consensus upon?
January 5th, 2010 at 10:00 am
Billy, how about polling a2f2a participants beforehand?
Of the following three views on file-sharing, which is closest to your own?
1) File-sharing should remain illegal, though copyright might need some reform and more appropriate enforcement to address it.
2) File-sharing should be permitted, so it would be best to compensate publishers from an Internet tax (aka compulsory license fee).
3) Monopolies such as copyright shouldn’t apply to the Internet, nor should a tax – a free market will be fine. Sharing and building upon published music is natural.
The results of such a poll might then indicate the likelihood of a2f2a participants ‘building a consensus’ upon any proposal for an Internet tax.
January 5th, 2010 at 12:43 pm
Responding to Crosbie @ Comment #13: My proposal is not for a “tax.” It is voluntary payment to be made only by those who use decentralized P2P which is not otherwise licensed. (For a discussion of how decentralized P2P would be “otherwise” licensed see the discussion at Part III.E. of my proposal (available here on a2f2a and at my web site, bennett.lincoff.com/CommentsCanada.pdf)).
January 5th, 2010 at 12:57 pm
Bennett, you could also say that 40% of earnings isn’t a tax, it’s just a voluntary payment should you wish to indulge in any exchange of money for work. Of course, if you don’t want to make the payment you would be committing a crime if you got paid for any work.
January 5th, 2010 at 3:32 pm
Responding generally to Crosbie Fitch:
As I remember from years of reading your posts on PHO, you propose a patronage system whereby fans would support the artists they like most by making direct financial contributions to them. Maybe you’ve used the term “tip jar” as a short hand to describe this.
The digital transmission right, administered as I suggest in my article, would directly and fully allow for implementation of your proposal for a tip jar. It would allow artists and fans to enter into any sort of relationships that they wish. And there would not be any residual right held by publishers and/or labels that could interfere with those relationships.
So, to the extent that you support a patronage system, your proposal and my proposal are in perfect synch. The difference between us is that my proposal also simultaneously enables every other business model involving digital transmissions of music to flourish.
January 5th, 2010 at 7:02 pm
Bennett, as you are already familiar with my posts on Pho (though I never proposed a tip jar), you shouldn’t need me to remind you that patronage is how artists used to be paid by their fans prior to copyright. However, due to the lack of a global telecommunications network there wasn’t much prospect of enabling large, globally distributed fan bases to pay the artist for their intellectual work. We tend to only hear about the fortunate few artists with a few wealthy fans or patrons that discovered them.
Anyway, patronage is what happens in a free market (and all other exchanges or commissions of art for money). So it’s not so much a system as a lack of anything that prevents or interferes with it, e.g. a state granted monopoly or a tax.
I propose abolishing monopolies that should never have been granted, and certainly not implementing any taxes to compensate those whose monopolies are no longer effective.
If you institute an Internet or communication tax (a compulsory license fee wrt a new privilege to exclusively transmit original digital works, or any other similar scheme), then just as with copyright you blow a free market for intellectual work out of the water. At least with copyright there was a market for copies, even at monopoly protected prices. With a tax, there isn’t even a market. The money is simply collected and then a tiny fraction doled back out.
So, yes, a tax is great because then anyone can do what they want without fear of prosecution from the cartels (given a tax now pays them for doing pretty much nothing except for being in the right place at the right time).
Ahem. Copyright was wrong to begin with. A tax is doubly wrong. People already had their cultural liberty. It was stolen from them in the 18th century and now those who’ve received it want to be paid forever in exchange for letting the people have it back? Now, that’s RICH.