The UK version of the entertainment industry’s Three Strikes business plan, touted as an independent proposal under the UK Digital Economy Bill, enters the committee stage in the House of Lords tomorrow.
It goes there apparently backed by what the mainstream media wrongly perceive as principal elements of the artist community, namely, members of the Featured Artists Coalition, with Dave Rowntree of Blur, Nick Mason of Pink Floyd, Ed O’Brien of Radiohead, Kate Nash, Hal Ritson of The Young Punx, Howard Jones, Mark Kelly of Marillion, Sandie Shaw, Master Shortie, Lucy Pullin of The Fire Escapes, Ross Millard of The Futureheads, Fran Healy of Travis, Annie Lennox, and Billy Bragg on its board of directors.
That’s a big deal because it gives the erroneous impression the majority of performers are solidly behind the ‘graduated response’ law, which would have ISPs as corporate copyright cops and the UK government as an official corporate copyright agency.
British taxpayers, not Hollywood or Big Music, would foot the bill.
However, only a handful, relatively speaking, of FAC members actually put their names to a support statement and meanwhile, a2f2a.com was born.
It, too, is based on a Three Stage plan, to wit >>>
- Help each community better understand the other;
- Help find a practical and workable system which offers artists fair remuneration in exchange for access to material by fans; and
- Help set the agenda for discussions about the role P2P can play within the emergent digital record industry.
‘The music industry is in desperate trouble’
It’s still very early days for a2f2a with fans providing most of the forward motion, but a paper by US intellectual property law attorney Bennett Lincoff, mooting a form of internet tax, sparked a lot of interest.
Submitted by him to last year’s Canadian government Copyright Consultations, “The music industry is in free fall, and it is dragging down all other relevant stakeholders with it,” he says, continuing:
“To date, all that the industry has accomplished through its brute force efforts is to waste time, lose money, and squander goodwill. No time remains for stopgap measures. There can be no justification for further delay in the implementation of needed change.”
You can read the full paper here on p2pnet or on a2f2a.com, where Lincoff has just started a promising two-way discussion with a2f2a.com members.
Canada isn’t under a Three Strikes threat. Yet. But if Vivendi Universal, EMI, Warner Music and Sony Music, and Disney, News Corp, Time Warner, Viacom, NBC Universal and Sony Pictures, are given same kind of free rein they’re enjoying in France and Britain, it won’t be long in coming.
“The music industry is in desperate trouble,” says Lincoff in the introduction to his paper, going on >>>
It has been in a decade-long death-spiral for which no one has yet offered a recovery plan that has worked.
It is my purpose in these Comments to propose legal reform and a comprehensive alternative approach to rights administration that will not only reverse the music industry’s decline but will also simultaneously promote technological innovation, enhance the free markets for consumer electronics and technology products, facilitate the growth of all manner of licensed music services (including licensed streaming and download services, and licensed P2P and social networks), and meet consumer demand for full, unfettered, DRM-free and lawful access to music.
The plan I propose involves the creation of a new right for music industry rights holders specifically adapted to digital transmissions of sound recordings and the musical works they embody. In Part III, I will define this new right (the “digital transmission right”), and discuss ownership, authority to grant licenses, division of royalties earned, conduct for which a license would be required, and the parties who would be responsible for obtaining licenses in particular circumstances.
The digital transmission right would be implemented through a combination of voluntary collective rights management and licenses freely negotiated between individual rights holders and music service providers (known as “direct licenses”).
In this regard, in Part IV, I will discuss the formation and regulation of voluntary collective rights management organizations; offer suggestions regarding governance, transparency, accountability and regulation; discuss the relationship of collectives to the individual rights holders who are their members; the relationship to each other of collectives in different territories; the relationship of collectives to digital music service providers; the basis upon which collectives might license digital transmissions, including transmissions that begin in one territory and end in another; the role of direct licensing in the context of collective management; license fees; the conduct of music use monitoring to support royalty distribution; and the allocation and payment of royalties to rights holders, including royalties payable for transborder transmissions.
The digital transmission right would not depend on the use of DRM for its success. Its monetization would not involve the imposition on rights holders of a statutory, compulsory or legal license. It would not require that a broadband access levy or tax be imposed on Internet users. And it would not require the compelled enlistment of ISPs or colleges and universities as enforcers on behalf of music industry rights holders.
Through the digital transmission right, implemented as I suggest in these Comments, authorized transmissions of recorded music could be made available from the largest number and widest array of licensed sources, anytime, anywhere, to anyone with network access. This, in turn, would provide authors, publishers, artists and producers, in the aggregate, with their best opportunity to do as well — if not better — financially than they have done under the system that the digital transmission right would replace.
Finally, in Part V, I will briefly critique proposals made by others regarding the possible roles that ISPs might play in efforts to resolve the crisis in the digital music marketplace. These include: Graduated response; licensing ISPs in their capacities as music service providers as a standalone proposition; compulsory licensing for “non-commercial” P2P coupled with a mandatory Internet access levy (as proposed by the German Green Party); and voluntary licensing of P2P that occurs “without motive of financial gain” coupled with payment of a voluntary Internet access levy (as proposed by the Songwriters Association of Canada). As will be seen, however, none of these offers a solution that meets the needs of all the relevant stakeholders; none provides a full and fair solution to the ongoing public policy deadlock.
The ‘digital transmission right’
Lincoff believes a “digital transmission right” would “bring about change that is directly and proportionately responsive to the challenges presented by the Internet; change that creates a new and fair balance between the rights of creators and those of music users; change that is technologically neutral; change that meets the needs of all the many competing stakeholders in the digital music marketplace. The digital transmission right will foster a legal marketplace for digital transmissions of recorded music with rules that are as simple, straightforward and clear as the context will allow; rules that are sufficiently flexible to adapt to the continually changing economic and technological environment of the global digital network.”
Moreover, “Its adoption of the digital transmission right would establish Canada as the leader in the worldwide effort to reform intellectual property law for the digital age,” he says.
It’ll be interesting to learn what their lordships come up with, tomorrow.
Hopefully, whatever it is will align more with the views of Lord Ralph Lucas, who recently said, “We are talking about powerful, monopolistic industries and giving them power over our citizens is something we ought to be careful of”, than those of Lord Peter Mandelson, who’s fronting the bill on behalf of the cartels.
Whatever they decide, it’s important the people it’s all about — the musicians and fans — have a clear position and with that in mind, Bragg, an a2f2a.com co-founder, asked in a recent post, “Does someone want to frame Bennett’s proposals in a simplified form that we can build a consensus upon?”
“How about polling a2f2a participants beforehand?” – asks Crosbie Fitch, suggesting it should be framed along the lines >>>
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,” he says.
Disclaimer: This falls under our “If you don’t have enough space in a comment, write an article and submit it” ruling. As a comment, it would’ve gone with Billy’s New Year, New Format? In other words, these are my views and aren’t meant to represent anyone else’s. I’ve also posted it as an article on p2pnet.
Jon Newton
January 5th, 2010 at 1:28 pm
@Jon,
Not to be too much of a pest, but since people are already proposing polls, it would probably good to have a poll script up and running sooner rather than later.
January 5th, 2010 at 1:47 pm
One point – as I understand it, Bennett’s proposals are not any “form of internet tax”, if they were I’d oppose them. That’s also something I don’t agree with in Crosbie’s list of options, to me there’s an excluded middle/option(s) not offered, I agree that file-sharing should be permitted, but not that publishers should be compensated by an internet tax/compulsory license fee, I firmly believe that there are alternatives to that which will compensate creative work. And publishers only when/if required in that process, which might be rather different to past experience with media reproduction and distribution. Options (1) and (3) in Crosbie’s list I entirely disagree with.
The main point I disagree with Bennett about is for decentralised P2P (with or without specific software applications) by private individuals where no money is made, which I believe should be entirely exempt, and not divided into downloader/uploader distinction.
Oh – and one other thing, I speak for myself in expressing sympathy for a lot of what was in that proposal, rather than PPUK per se, and I’m not presently sure whether or not/how far Pirate members generally would support it.
It is, however, in my opinion a very interesting contribution to the debate, which I definitely expect to debate/discuss with other UK pirates, and for me personally there are substantial elements for which I will argue in favour.
January 5th, 2010 at 6:55 pm
Yeh – I know.
Cheers!
January 5th, 2010 at 7:29 pm
@John Barron:
Recapping Crosbie’s scenarios…
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.
…to which you said, “Options (1) and (3) in Crosbie’s list I entirely disagree with.”
However, this conflicts with your previous statement…
“…Bennett’s proposals are not any ‘form of internet tax’, if they were I’d oppose them.”
a) Please explain the contradiction.
b) Please explain why you “entirely disagree” with #3.
January 5th, 2010 at 7:43 pm
Why not have a poll that goes more like:
1) If music has an opportunity to be free and liberated whereby fans could be able to use and consume music to their hearts extent yet provide a means of compensation to the artists/ songwriters and even ’shareholders’ with minimal or nearly no economic effect upon ‘fans’… would you support such a scenario? (yes/ no)
2) P2p in every form will exist forever. There is no available power to stop or control this phenomenon. Would you agree that any legislation that tries to forbid this inevitable cultural exchange is technically impossible and likewise ridiculous (yes/no)
3) A completely ‘free market’ scenario is more than likely unachievable in the face of the current legislation being proposed, not to mention super-powered economic forces within various media-oriented industries. Although sharing and building upon artistic works may be considered natural, would you agree that we live on planet earth where laws and regulations set precedence? If so, would you agree that perhaps the only way to influence those laws would be to form a solid consensus and work to create a persuasive counter-proposal to the likes of ACTA and 3-strikes? And if so, would you agree to an assertive position from A2F2A against legislation that is currently being imposed which supports the squandering of tax-payers money in order to enforce an impossible control-driven agenda (e.g. 3-strikes, digital Britain?) (Yes/no).
well, it’s 1a.m. but, was just wondering if we might actually agree on all or most of those wee three poll points.
January 5th, 2010 at 9:05 pm
Yes, Yes, and Yes on Indiana’s proposals. I think all of the ideas presented here are fair and something that hopefully we can all agree on, especially 2. Let’s not get mired down in semantics but focus on the bigger ideas. We can rephrase the ideas into statements instead of questions later.
I also share sentiments with John Barron that “private individuals where no money is made” is what we should be focusing on. Commercial situations are entirely different.
January 6th, 2010 at 12:47 am
@Indiana:
In answer to your 3 proposals…
The answer to #1 and #2 have always been “yes”. Pretty well everyone has been beating you over the head with that stuff since you came here.
As for #3, you’re again marrying the same 2 thoughts that don’t rely on each other – the “3 Strikes/ACTA” threat and the “free market” scenario.
A free market actually exists already. It’s only existing copyright agreements that are holding it at bay where they exist. Where they don’t exist, the artists are already using the free market system.
You need to stop thinking that “3 Strikes” (and similar ideas) are somehow “forced alternatives” to anything. They are NOT. Hypothetically, copyright itself could be completely abolished and there would still be the threat of corporate interference.
Similarly, you need to stop thinking that any licensing or levy proposals would stop the “3 Strikes” thinking, or ACTA, or any future threats of corporate interference.
As long as the “Intellectual Property” stigma exists, nothing will steer “rights holders” from their present course of demanding corporate interference.
We shouldn’t give #3 a “yes” or “no”, as the proposal isn’t logical. It needs to be broken up into its independent parts and voted separately.
January 6th, 2010 at 1:17 am
I agree the format is not conducive to achieving objectives. Ideas get lost rather than distilled for further iterative discussion towards consensus. Posts are simply too long. Points get buried and newbies are alienated. There is no traction.
Also…most posters interested in the issues have little weight vs artists with recognizable names. This dilutes impact.
Perhaps take a few key issues and run them around the artist community to build for or against consensus? This may need to be done offline.
Perhaps better is to start again with a board which can only be posted by recognizable artists and a few specialists who can add value. And limit word count per post. You can call it a2f2a2
January 6th, 2010 at 3:39 am
A few translations:
Private individuals where no money is made = couch potatoes or artists publishing their work free by way of promotion
Private individuals where money is made = artists trying to make a living without having to sign to record labels
Money that magically appears out of a pot at the end of a rainbow = TAX (aka the nicer sounding ‘license fee’).
Unlike national infrastructure, it’s best if works of art (of highly subjective value) are paid for only by those people that appreciate them, i.e. a free market between artists and their fans.
January 6th, 2010 at 7:28 am
@ Mysteron:
a2f2a is doing what it’s supposed to be doing: it’s provoking constructive discussion — such as your comment.
In other respects, Bennett Lincoff’s paper has struck many chords with many people and as of yesterday afternoon, he’s writing a major update which’ll be split it into sections to address individual concerns separately. It’ll be published in a2f2a and p2pnet as a series. I’ll do a post on this a little later.
Cheers!
January 6th, 2010 at 12:03 pm
@Mysteron:
Such a site you describe would merely be “a2a”. Just artists and a few “elitists”, and no fans (read “customers”!). What the hell good would that be?! And, we’ve already discussed having very few artists of any recognition around.
This site is trying to address an all-encompassing and complicated issue that affects EVERYONE. This means everyone is “qualified”, as everyone’s thoughts are needed.
I’m not sure what kind of “specialists” you seem to think aren’t already here. Many of the “fans” here are not “just filesharers”. We’ve got professionals in networking/protocols, application design/coding, publishing/desktop admin, etc., and a number of them also have or have had their hands in writing and/or playing music to various degrees.
But, most of all, these people are also “hardcore music consumers”, which should automatically grant them a helluva lot of say. Music is just one of the many worlds offered to internet users. The whole scope of the digital world needs to be properly represented. Fixing the digital music scene itself cannot be allowed to overrule everything else held dear about the Internet.
And, why would you want to limit the amount of input someone can post?! The stuff we’re talking about can’t exactly be explained “in 200 words or less”, and some of this stuff really needs to be explained to others. I’m sure most people don’t mind reading some long posts, as many are also taking the time to MAKE these posts.
How so??
Many artists have just as much to learn about the very realities of the digital world they need to adjust to, as the many filesharers have to learn about how artists get paid and/or shafted, what incentives they have to continue, what would give them these incentives, and what ideas they would consider fair.
We not only need to find a way to get artists paid, we also need to do it without infringing on the privacy, rights and freedoms of all users of digital technology. Realism and fairness can only be found between the two.
And how many “recognizable names” have you seen here so far?! There’s Billy, who sparked the creation of this site, and then we’ve got Jack Ely, which I’m sure isn’t a familiar name to the younger listeners. Other than that, we have a very small handful of “strugglers” and “independents”.
Yes, there’s a whole “coalition” of well-knowns being talked about here, but they have yet to offer any words of their own.
January 6th, 2010 at 12:29 pm
@ DA:
Well said.
Cheers!
January 6th, 2010 at 2:19 pm
Lets not worry about who is and who isn’t posting.
To find consensus we need to focus on big broad notions that set the tone for the debate we want to have. They need to be ideas that recognise the rights of artists such as
ARTISTS NEED TO BE PAID BY THE PEOPLE WHO ENJOY AND EXPLOIT THEIR WORK
They also need to be ideas that recognise the rights of individual file-sharers such as
INDIVIDUALS WHO FILE-SHARE FOR NO GAIN OR PROFIT SHOULD NOT BE PERSECUTED
And crucially, they need to be ideas that are clearly beneficial to both communities such as
NET NEUTRALITY MUST BE DEFENDED AND MAINTAINED FOR THE BENEFIT OF ALL
January 6th, 2010 at 2:23 pm
Devil’s Advocate:
Option (1) on that list of course I disagree with, no need to say more. Option (3) is more subtle, I do agree that “Sharing and building upon published music is natural.” on the other hand I don’t agree at all that the grant of (limited) copyright monopoly should be abolished entirely, or that it should apply but not to the Internet.
Rather, I accept, and declare, that granting a limited commercial monopoly, (Internet or not), may be a valid trade-off for us to make as a society, and can encourage the production of more creative work than would otherwise be the case, to be shared freely and developed further within a reasonable time (i.e. less than a generation, certainly not 100+ years as at present).
One of my other criticisms of Bennett’s proposal is that it doesn’t address the issue of today’s excessive copyright duration, though in fairness it isn’t trying to and I can perhaps accept that as an orthogonal issue that while important can be discussed independently.
As for the apparent contradiction, I’m not really following what you’re driving at? The only part of Bennett’s proposal that looks like a tax to me is the flat fee proposed for individuals engaged in decentralised P2P who are not otherwise covered, and (not only for that reason) that’s the one specific aspect about the proposal itself that I really disagree with.
I see things have moved on, anyway, and further work is being done on it, it will be interesting to see what comes out of that.
January 6th, 2010 at 2:29 pm
@ Billy:
If I drank, I’d drink to that.
But I’d change ‘individuals’ to ‘anyone’ (kids’ hospitals playing music, for example) …
Cheers!
January 6th, 2010 at 2:57 pm
@John Barron:
On your take on copyright, fair enough. I don’t necessarily agree with it all, but you’ve explained yourself.
The contradiction I was referring to exists in saying you disapprove of #1 and #3 of Crosbie’s scenarios, thereby implying you don’t disapprove of #2 (compensation by compulsory tax/license), after saying you object to any form of “internet tax”.
That just has me confused as to what you’re really trying to say.
January 6th, 2010 at 3:56 pm
@DA who has been beating me in the head about my no. 1 & 2 ???? You’ve lost me on that one. As for number 3, this is a ‘poll’ (lol). It doesn’t matter what gets bunched together, it’s a poll with yes/no scenario. Free market is impossible when government/corporations are nearly synonymous beasts. It’s a ‘control’ issue at hand and that’s not likely to change. It can only be influenced via alternative proposals (IMO).
January 6th, 2010 at 6:46 pm
From reading the responses, it seems like most if not everyone is rejecting #1 of Crosbie’s scenarios. If there’s consensus on that, can we take it off the table? I know it doesn’t sound like much, but it would be the first group decision and a first step in finding a group view.
I’d also like to throw out the site mission statement as something everyone can get behind: “Artists need to be paid, and fans want to pay them.”
January 6th, 2010 at 9:45 pm
@Indiana:
You’re trying to tell people, by inference, that 3 Strikes and the like are all results (consequences?) of not having a proposal. I won’t vote on a statement that ties them together like that, as it makes no logical sense.
It’s like saying in order to eliminate beastiality we need to each kill a puppy (in order to remove them from the equation).
If a statement is illogical, then using it as part of a poll won’t make it any more logical. If it’s illogical because it contains separate ideas that don’t have any business being together, then these ideas should simply be polled independently.
Only for those that play the corporate game. For the rest, they’ve already got a free market.
A true free market is something you don’t need laws to create. It exists where there is no legal hold on it. It’s akin to the same natural laws and rights you’ve already refused to acknowledge, so I’ll not bother beating that dead horse again.
The “control issue” (corporate interference) is a separate problem from the “copyright issue”. The only reason people think of these two things together is because the copyright angle is being used as an excuse to exploit control from the users. That’s what the MAFIAA wants you to think. That’s how propaganda works.
As I said, the copyright issue could be fixed tomorrow, but the quest for control would carry on. As long as people keep marrying these two separate issues together, they’ll keep trying to deal with them as one problem – and doing so is impossible. That’s what they want.
Any proposals to “compensate” for copyright infringement or “legalize filesharing” will not get rid of ACTA, 3 Strikes, DPI, or any other corporate interference. That’s the red herring in all of this.
Corporate interference can only be addressed by activities like Net Neutrality legislation, enforcement of Fair Competition and Fair Consumer Practices, and massive public exposure to the corporate deception that brought it all on.
January 6th, 2010 at 9:50 pm
@David:
I’m pretty sure Crosbie was being rhetorical with his 3 scenarios. The first two are obviously statements about the way things are already, and why they don’t work anymore, while the third was intended to be the only logical alternative.
I could be wrong. Crosbie?…
January 7th, 2010 at 4:40 am
DevilsAdvocate, I wasn’t being rhetorical, just setting out the three key views as to ’solutions’ as I’ve seen them over the last few years. I’ll note that ‘advertising supported’ and other non-copyright based models come under the free-market view of ’solutions’.
The first two are pro-copyright (suspending people’s liberty in order to provide publishers with a monopoly – and provide the state with control over publications).
Aside from minor infringements covered by fair use/dealing, a compulsory license fee has always been the remedy where the costs of obtaining permission would lead to widespread infringement, e.g. if you can’t stop people singing other people’s songs then say it’s legal only if a license fee is paid upon demand by a collection society.
So really, it’s pro-copyright (1:enforcement or 2:compulsory license/tax), or 3:pro-free market.
The trouble is, once a tax is let through the door you can’t get rid of it. Once the tax collection mechanism and principle is in place you can only quibble over the recipients. It may start off as “Half to the administrators and half to all publishers due a dividend of at least $1,000 per annum”, but upon public revolt would at best change into “A government tax upon online commerce for the benefit of the people”.
A tax on communication? What the heck are people thinking?
“Think of the poor, starving artists” is a ruse to charge an Internet tax, just as “Think of the children” is a ruse to suppress ‘undesirable’ communication.
This is meant to be the age of communication and yet governments and corporations are doing their damnedest to find ways of subjecting communicants to their will, monitoring them, censoring them, controlling them, and taxing them.
And so we have people saying “Yes, I agree. If anyone’s going to get paid for singing my song then they should either be prosecuted or forced to pay me a royalty.”
That is how deeply people have been brainwashed since copyright was enacted in the 18th century. Those people are where the groundswell of support for a tax will come from. Those people who are blissfully unaware that cultural exchange has been free for aeons, that it is NATURAL to freely sing each other’s songs and tell each other’s stories – that a law against doing so, or a fine/fee/tax for doing so is wholly unnatural, unethical, and culturally repugnant.
January 7th, 2010 at 6:18 am
The logic of what? The free market? We saw where that gets us in Iceland
January 7th, 2010 at 8:01 am
Billy, the UK citizen will be taxed to the hilt over the next few years in order to meet the cost of bailing out the banks to the tune of a trillion quid. You can’t use the example of government backed banks that are allowed to become too large to fail and have to be bailed out by the taxpayer, as examples of what happens in a free market. You’ve simply given an example of what happens when a regulated organisation is improperly regulated. There is no free market in banking (anyone behaving as bank is obliged to be subject to regulation). If there was a free market in banking then people would be a lot more careful where they put their money. Even so, it would be a heck of a lot cheaper for the taxpayer who is now looking at a bill of about £40,000 over the next few years.
It’s those on the receiving end of a tax who end up laughing all the way to the bank, not the poor taxpayer who’s legally forced to cough it up. And those furthest upstream always get the largest cut, i.e. collectors, administrators, collection societies, publishers, etc.
January 7th, 2010 at 10:17 am
@DA
erm. I wouldn’t be so sure about that!
And it’s the ‘corporate game’ that everyone here has been banging on about! The other ‘Free market’ scenario has no complications. Nothing hinders people from selling their eggs, tomatoes, copies or gig tickets except for supply/demand. The copyright issue obviously has an effect upon the likelihood of ACTA and 3-strikes breaking through. The control issues clearly involve money. Without ‘copyright’, there wouldn’t be a 3-strikes. Clearly the two go hand-in-hand. That doesn’t mean that there won’t still be ‘control’ issues from corporate/government interest groups. Of course there will be. But, those issues aren’t directly affecting the future of p2p or the future of artists/musician’s/ composers in the same way as 3-strikes might.
Telling everyone to simply get on with things and create a ‘free market’ isn’t going to rid us of ACTA or 3-strikes either! However, other proposals that make the need to use or enforce ‘3-strikes’ unnecessary could rid society of that plague.
January 7th, 2010 at 12:10 pm
So why are you so determined to remove these economics from digital files? Infinite supply drives the price to the marginal cost, zero.
And that’s where you’re wrong. We can be rid of that plague right now, by not passing ACTA and 3-strikes. Proposing a tax isn’t going stop ACTA or filesharing, it’s just an ill-conceived way to generate a free revenue stream at the cost of individuals.
January 7th, 2010 at 3:01 pm
@SteelWolf:
“Insanity can be defined as doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.” – Albert Einstein
Nudge, nudge, wink, wink… Say no more!
January 7th, 2010 at 3:15 pm
@steelwolfe how am I removing the economics from digital files, please remind me? And where is this ‘tax’ that’s being proposed? And yes, 3-strikes and acta are things that we are trying to lobby against. I’m not sure how you believe that we can ‘be rid of that plague right now’. Maybe you’ve got a magic wand?
January 7th, 2010 at 3:20 pm
@steelwolfe We’ve realised the marginal costs of digital files has been pushed to zero. That’s why we offer free music under an ad-funded model. I’m not sure what it is that you are trying to say. I thought this thread was about the points of consensus that we are hoping to find.
I find it rather funny that many people on here keep banging on about a ‘tax’ on just about every thread. The lincoff proposal doesn’t mention a tax at all from what I’ve read.
January 7th, 2010 at 3:23 pm
@DA nudge nudge, wink wink, Einstein is right “Insanity can be defined as doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.” and you people keep on doing the same thing over and over again producing the same arguments about the same 200-year-old suspended rights. You could do that for 200 more years and you wouldn’t probably move the debate anywhere forward or come to any sort of agreement or consensus for the simple reason that the past is over. You can’t get it back. So, maybe move on from the history lesson and perhaps work towards the realities?
January 7th, 2010 at 7:45 pm
Devil’s Advocate:
Hopefully having answered #1 and #3, disregarding Indiana’s comments in between, which while useful I lost track of the numbering
You are correct that I don’t disapprove of #2. I approve of compensation for creative work, but not by means of a compulsory tax/license. This is what I meant by an excluded middle, I need to see an expansion of #2 into alternatives. And at present my view is that any form of internet tax would be harmful rather than helpful.
I have no absolute view about how we solve this, in particular details, I’m interested in what works. I would like to see that creative people have the opportunity to profit from their work, and earn a living. I would also like to see that we can use digital technology to best advantage, and that we can develop and increase the total of human culture, information and knowledge as far as possible, and making the most possible use of technical advances to do so.
Any proposal which does that will gain my support; my present views are based partly on what convinces me personally, since I could not support something I did not believe in at all, and partly on what I assess could gain wide support, since I could not support something which I did not believe we would, as a society, implement in practice.
January 7th, 2010 at 8:06 pm
Indiana, copyright has ended. It’s over, kaput. It’s got as much power to stop the culturally liberated youth of today making unauthorised copies as the church has in stopping them engage in sex before marriage.
It’s you who have to recognise that the historical misadventure of copyright is finally over. Let go. You can’t get it back. Confront today’s reality where copies are freely made and exchanged – without any royalty.
January 7th, 2010 at 8:58 pm
@Crosbie:
Okay, maybe you weren’t being *deliberately* rhetorical.
January 8th, 2010 at 9:01 am
So much for consensus.
Here we are again, with the same voices lecturing us about how its all over and we should ‘confront today’s reality’
Well here’s a bit of reality, taken from page 11 of today’s Guardian, – sales of singles have reached a record high, with 98% downloaded. But how??? Copies can be freely made and exchanged without a royalty. Why would anyone be so foolish as to buy downloads?
People buy Evian even though they can get water free from a tap. Why? Because it’s convenient.
Just watch how the music industry adapts its products and prices to make it convenient for the majority of music fans to buy legal downloads. Its already happening: I was wondering what Mumford & Sons sound like the other day. I had a look on amazon.co.uk, found that their single was available for 29p and bought it with one-click. The whole process, from thought to ownership, took less than three minutes.
This is the way the business is going. Things have changed in the past few years that make the music business and the current copyright regime no longer fit for purpose. But the industry will adapt and copyright will adapt with it. The question is, will we see the creation of an ever more accessible internet that allows individual creative producers to bring their wares to market alongside the majors or will we see the end of net neutrality and the creation of a market where distribution is controlled by the majors once again?
We have an opportunity to influence the debates on these issues that are currently under discussion in the music industry. However, if we are to spend all our time either dismissing or defending copyright then we will never be able to build the consensus necessary to set the agenda in the ongoing debate.
January 8th, 2010 at 9:29 am
Yes Billy, so stop worrying about file-sharing, the demise of copyright’s ability to stop it, and embrace the new free market in copies. Moreover, let those who make copies sell copies, and let those who make music sell music.
This is a2f2a and that’s why I’m patiently trying to explain to ARTISTS why they should sell their ART and not get hung up on others making or selling copies and whether or not people should respect the monopoly of copyright.
You and Indiana persist in talking about copies and being able to get a royalty from anyone selling them, and if not, taxing people.
As I said to you a while ago, you’ve got to decide whether you’re in the business of making and selling copies, or whether you’re a musician in the business of making and selling your music.
The business of making copies of music recordings has gone from punched roll, to shellac, to vinyl, to acetate, to electrons. Now anyone and their dog can get into the business of making copies. You may think there’s plenty of money in that industry, so sure, give up your career in the music industry and perhaps start an iTunes competitor.
What business are you actually interested in? You appear to be continually vacillating.
January 8th, 2010 at 9:41 am
” So much for consensus.
Here we are again, with the same voices lecturing us about how its all over and we should ‘confront today’s reality’ ”
Right. Lack of consensus is clearly the fault of P2P advocates alone. It’s all our fault .. gotcha.
” Well here’s a bit of reality, taken from page 11 of today’s Guardian, – sales of singles have reached a record high, with 98% downloaded. But how??? Copies can be freely made and exchanged without a royalty. Why would anyone be so foolish as to buy downloads? ”
I’ve been pointing this type of shit out for 10 years.
PROOF that downloading does NOTHING to harm sales, and I’m the one that couldn’t get a point if it hit him. Since you and your entire FAC can see that downloading doesn’t hurt sales, and that the Labels can adjust, STOP SUPPORTING THREE STRIKES !!. Denounce it publicly to your labels. Why continue to BACK it ?
Cuz your ‘friends’ might be mean to you ? That’s ALSO why we never can seem to come to a consensus. Some artists, while they appear to know the facts in word, their actions still back the labels. Consensus requires compromise. There is more of that than you will acknowledge from the P2P’ers and NONE from the FAC. Don’t try to lay it all on us.
January 8th, 2010 at 11:20 am
@Billy #33
Dude, we none of us said people won’t buy copies. The problem is we are saying do not force consumers/fans to buy with fixed prices based upon someone else’s perceived value.
The only reason the industry is adapting is because downloading is available. If they get their way and 3strikes is actually employed somewhere and in effect, running, striking, and if filesharing stops or reduces, say goodbye to lower prices, GUARANTEED!
And we’ve already answered the “Copies can be freely made and exchanged without a royalty. Why would anyone be so foolish as to buy downloads?” questions.
So while you say “here we go again” we feel the same towards “Why would anyone be so foolish as to buy downloads?”!!!!
I know you understand why! Don’t take advantage of that or support any type of program that tries to take advantage of that. Because people will only be foolish if given the… CHOICE to give money for something, because they believe it will go to the artist.
We ARE agreeing on the same principle, but we are NOT going to approve anything that leaves the door open for abuse in the future!
January 8th, 2010 at 11:26 am
No, they buy it because they are stupid.
Pen and Teller did an excellent job illustrating this here –
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XfPAjUvvnIc
The reason it sells is a combination of ignorance and marketing, exactly the same way people watch the mainstream media and think three strikes laws are a great idea.
As for consensus, why did you think that would be easy? Have you ever watched a film of the House of Commons, or the U.S. congress in session? Even with just four people consensus can be near impossible. Let me give you some examples from bands I’ve been in.
Guitarist: “I want to take a break.”
Drummer:”I don’t, lets keep playing.”
fight fight fight fight fight…
Singer:”Lets play this song.”
Bass player:”I hate that song, I don’t wanna do it”
Singer:”Fuck you!”
fight fight fight fight fight…
Singer:”I told everyone practice was tonight, where is the Bass player?” (Bass player never shows up, and is unrepentant when confronted about it. This has happened MANY times, not just once)
Lead guitarist to drummer:”Look, I know you love to drink during practice, but the local cable station is going to let us film there for free using their equipment, the only rule they have is no alcohol. It will only be for an hour or two.”
Drummer:”If I can’t drink, I won’t do it”
Result – no video is made, and drummer gets booted from the band.
To reiterate, that is just with four people, it doesn’t get easier with increased numbers. I’m not claiming any consensus is impossible, jut that it takes time and work, and some areas there may never be complete agreement.
I think the poll idea was a good one, it will give us all a hard number of what percentage of people support/oppose each idea that has been presented here, it just needs to be set up (Yeah Jon, I’m bugging you again).
January 8th, 2010 at 12:43 pm
So what have we learned from the past few posts?
1) That artists have got to decide whether they’re in the business of making and selling copies, or whether they’re a musician in the business of making and selling your music.
Since when were these two mutually exclusive?
2) that only P2Per’s have made any compromise in this debate
Where was that then? I haven’t seen any compromise over the issue of copyright
3) “Dude, we none of us said people won’t buy copies.”
If that is the case then why are we being instructed to make the choice expressed in point 1?
4) People buy downloads because they are stupid.
Thanks Monkey. Now we know where you are coming from
January 8th, 2010 at 2:25 pm
I didn’t say people who buy downloads are dumb, I said people who buy bottled water are. I thought bottled water was a bad example, if you watched the Pen and Teller link I provided you would see that. Thinking about it, maybe bottled water WAS a good example in one way, water is not protected by copyright and is dirt cheap, yet through intensive marketing it’s a HUGE business. Allofmp3.com sold a lot of music before it was shut down by the RIAA so yes, music downloads can sell if the price is right, there is no drm, and the catalog is huge.
I guess you haven’t read any of the number of PPUK posts discussing compromise on copyright, nor mine stating that while I don’t object to Crosbie’s ideas on principal, but if it won’t fly with artists I’m not against PPUK’s proposals. A consensus has definitely NOT been reached on copyright yet, and that includes within the p2p crowd, NOT just p2p vs artists. I stand by my previous post on consensus, IE it’s not an easy thing to come by, takes work, and sometimes can’t be reached.
January 8th, 2010 at 5:07 pm
I had a great response all written out for you, Billy, but I deleted it. You’ve made it abundantly clear that you came to this site not to learn, but to advance your agenda that the only way to stop atrocities like three-strikes (legislation that, I might add, you are on public record as supporting) is to replace them with equal atrocities involving taxes, levies, licenses and all manner of snake-oil systems that promise to reclaim money from p2p sharing.
January 8th, 2010 at 5:15 pm
Responding to Crosbie @#31: In your imaginary world where “copyright has ended . . . .[is] over, kaput,” can I lawfully operate a subscription streaming service that opffers the entire Billy Bragg catalog without getting permission or paying him anything?
January 8th, 2010 at 5:19 pm
I created a poll at SurveyMonkey: Click here to take survey
I don’t think it will show results immediately, so I’ll wait a day or two and then post them. I’ve included many of the suggestions and statements in this thread, but it’s by no means exhaustive. There’s also space for comments about the survey, feel free to leave feedback.
January 8th, 2010 at 5:50 pm
If Jon wants to take a look at this and make it a separate article, that’s fine with me. I’ll be able to write up a more comprehensive results section then too.
January 8th, 2010 at 7:20 pm
Looks good, David. I’ll post it tomorrow. Thanks for taking the trouble. How many responses does it allow?
Cheers!
January 8th, 2010 at 7:56 pm
The survey can accept as many responses as we can get. Respond away, artists and fans!
January 8th, 2010 at 8:00 pm
Erm… make that 100 responses.
January 8th, 2010 at 8:14 pm
@Crosbie Fitch no. 31: Sorry, I’ve missed which parallel universe you are working with on that commentary. Does my comment above in #5 sound like I’m harping about copyright? NO, but, there does need to be a fair use, fair play and fair compensation scenario. We are not talking about pizzas here, we are talking about the regeneration of culture. You know, here in the UK, you pay for keeping culture that absolutely cannot sustain itself and isn’t proliferating at all. In Scotland, we pay to keep the Gaelic language alive, we pay to subsidise classical orchestras and we pay for libraries, museums, archives, churches, and all sorts of cultural institutions. This happens and nobody really asks you or I whether or not we want it to happen. But, personally, I’m very glad it does happen. It happens to preserve art within our culture, I’m hoping that you would be ok with that as well regardless of your opinions about what happened 200 years ago and what the rules are regarding copyright or the ‘kaput’ state of said copyright. In Scotland, there is likewise free education, people residing within Scotland go to University with fully paid tuition.
It’s about culture and here we are talking about music. We are not talking about pizzas. So, in many ways, it doesn’t matter how far down to zero the cost of a ‘copy’ is or whether or not you should be able to repossess a pre-industrial ‘natural’ right.
It’s about how to preserve the regeneration of music and compensate creative people for the use of their works and the ‘reality’ of what that actually means. (which I’ve attempted to explain in my comment #15 on the ‘Three powers pulling in three directions’ thread.)
It would be nice if we could all get back to the heart of the matter. Many of you say that you would like to see artists be compensated for their work and many of you have various opinions on how that should or should not be done. It’s a real shame if some form of compromise cannot be made. Really, rather than discussing all of the eventualities. If everyone were to write a very simple list of 5 things that they want to see come out of this debate and another 5 things that they would be willing to give up, we might find that there is a lot more agreement here than people are willing to let on.
Can we not start recognising the points of agreement that are here? Can anyone else see where a lot of people are talking at cross purposes even though they are sometimes actually saying the same things..in essence, nearly agreeing even?
January 8th, 2010 at 9:23 pm
@David L just refreshed and saw your poll. Cool! maybe this will help see where people stand and hopefully show many points where we agree:)
January 9th, 2010 at 7:25 am
Indiana, the artist’s options in terms of getting paid are as follows:
1) Sign with a publisher/label and/or register with a collection society, and rely upon ever more draconian enforcement of copyright to ensure the publisher/society’s revenue is large enough that one’s advance is recouped by a pittance of a royalty within a decade or so and/or one’s license fee income is worth opening a bank account for. Berate all file-sharers in your audience and participate in anti-piracy campaigns.
2) Give one’s art away in the hope that an Internet tax will be legislated within a decade or so. Campaign for the implementation of said tax.
3) Give away one’s art, and sell souvenir copies and t-shirts (and advertising). Pretend that one can afford agencies and lawyers to detect and prosecute copyright infringers.
4) Sell one’s art to one’s fans and neutralise copyright to reassure one’s fans that their liberty to share and build on one’s art has been restored.
Frankly, giving one’s art away is not going to make you much money. And selling it to a label in exchange for an advance on a 1% royalty is pretty much giving it away too. I’m one of the few people on the planet daring to suggest that artists should sell their art directly to their fans and I end up being considered the nutter in a parallel universe wasting everyone’s time by proposing the inconceivable notion of a free market in art (as once existed prior to copyright). That’s just how crazy the situation is today.
January 9th, 2010 at 8:04 am
Crosbie, are you going to answer my question in Comment #40?
January 9th, 2010 at 8:26 am
@Crosbie #49: You said “I’m one of the few people on the planet daring to suggest that artists should sell their art directly to their fans and I end up being considered the nutter in a parallel universe wasting everyone’s time by proposing the inconceivable notion of a free market in art (as once existed prior to copyright)”
A “free market” is one in which you have WILLING SELLERS and WILLING BUYERS. The seller proposes a price; the buyer either accepts the seller’s price, makes a counteroffer, or decides to do without the good or service in question. If a counteroffer is made, then the seller can either reject it (in which case there will not be a transaction), accept it, or make another counteroffer. And so on.
The important point about a free market is that when the parties are unable to agree upon the price, the would-be buyer doesn’t get the good or the service.
But that’s not the way you’re so-called free market would operate at all. In your free market for music the buyer has the exclusive right to set the price. That price may well be, will likely often be, zero. And whether or not the artist approves the price, the consumer (who can’t really be called a “buyer” when the price is zero) gets the artist’s work.
In your “free market” the only thing that would be “free” is the creative output of songwriters and recording artists.
January 9th, 2010 at 8:41 am
@Crosbie
“I’m one of the few people on the planet daring to suggest that artists should sell their art directly to their fans”
You’re not even the only person on this thread who is suggesting that artists should sell directly to fans.
The reason that your argument has left you feeling marginalised is that you insist on linking this idea to the abolition of all publishing rights. If you really want to see individual artists making a living independently of the majors by selling directly to fans, then you have to accept that the right of permission will play an important role in enabling them to construct a viable business model that allows them to survive outside of the mainstream.
Controlling our own publishing rights and being able to decide when our music can be used for free and when someone has to pay a royalty will be as significant an income source as mechandising and all the other add-ons that have been suggested here. However, that relies on us being able decide who can and who cannot use our work.
Artists are not rapacious corporations who seek to squeeze every penny from anyone who seeks to hear, own or use their work. They respect notions of fair use and are slowly starting to get to grips with the benefits of ‘freemiums’. Copyright, as it currently stands, is not fit for purpose in the digital age and sorely needs reform. However, you cannot expect artists to willingly walk away from their right to decide who can and cannot use their work simply to suit your libertarian view of the ‘free market’.
January 9th, 2010 at 9:43 am
The problem with this use of the word ‘free market’ is that Crosbie Fitch is talking about a ‘free market system from a parallel universe’. He’s not talking about the one that works in the world today where the merchant actually has control over his inventory. He’s talking about his ‘free market’ where there is endless availability of ‘copies’ (which are exact copies of the master copies of the ‘recordings’ that he wishes artists to sell directly to their fans!)
In a digital world with endless copies available via p2p and various other means, the ‘creator’ only has control of the first copy he/she releases. So, therefore, he has absolutely no market control over his own works and since he’s said that the supply has driven demand down to near-zero cost, the potential for the creator to survive is likewise near-zero for his sound recordings. Without a license for p2p/bittorrent users, there will only be a squeeze upon it (3-strikes, ACTA, etc.) There will inevitably be a censorship placed upon the technology unless a ’solution’ is found. Without allowing artists/creators some form of control over their works, there is not a ‘free market’ for those works.
January 9th, 2010 at 10:03 am
” You’re not even the only person on this thread who is suggesting that artists should sell directly to fans. ”
No one is ‘telling’ anyone to do anything. We’re all throwing things out there. Scenarios that may or may not work, some that ARE working etc ..
” Controlling our own publishing rights and being able to decide when our music can be used for free and when someone has to pay a royalty will be as significant an income source as mechandising and all the other add-ons that have been suggested here. However, that relies on us being able decide who can and who cannot use our work. ”
I don’t think anyone has a problem with this ( ‘cept crosbie
). In fact, I think a majority thinks this is very possible to do WITHOUT ANY LABEL SUPPORT. Also I , and others have provided examples where this is being done with art other than music as well. You yourself have pointed out that sharing really isn’t affecting anything.
” Artists are not rapacious corporations who seek to squeeze every penny from anyone who seeks to hear, own or use their work. They respect notions of fair use and are slowly starting to get to grips with the benefits of ‘freemiums’. Copyright, as it currently stands, is not fit for purpose in the digital age and sorely needs reform. ”
Absolutely.
” However, you cannot expect artists to willingly walk away from their right to decide who can and cannot use their work simply to suit your libertarian view of the ‘free market’. ”
I don’t.
Most of us don’t.
A few of us do. That doesn’t mean ALL of us do.
Taking the example of a few and applying it to the whole is bullshit. There are a hell of a lot more of us here that agree with those points than do not. Some of us are ’suggesting’ simply that it can be done without the Labels.
And i’m the one that can’t see ?
January 9th, 2010 at 10:19 am
Dredds,
Actually, my post was directed at Crosbie. And I’m willing to accept that he is the only person who is utterly opposed to the right of permission. The trouble is that, every time we try to talk about building a consensus – such as on this thread – he turns up and tells us artist that we have to accept his perception of reality. Here’s an example from his post 31 above:
“It’s you (artists) who have to recognise that the historical misadventure of copyright is finally over. Let go. You can’t get it back. Confront today’s reality where copies are freely made and exchanged – without any royalty.”
Now if, as you suggest, no one in the P2P community posting here, apart from Crobsie, is opposed to the idea of artists being able to decide who can and cannot use their work, then we should make this part of the basis for the consensus that we are trying to build – perhaps in exchange for artists accepting that people who share files without making any gain should not be persecuted.
January 9th, 2010 at 2:41 pm
Sorry Bennett, I missed your question.
Of course, without copyright you can reproduce, stream, broadcast, remix or even rearrange anyone else’s published work.
If Billy has delivered his entire catalog to you then you don’t need any permission to reproduce, stream, or broadcast it.
The only thing that LEGALLY requires you to obtain Billy’s permission is copyright. Copyright originally only lasted 14 years before you no longer needed permission. Today it lasts longer than a mortal lifespan. Prior to copyright no permission was needed. If you heard someone sing a song, you could sing it again yourself without needing any permission.
January 9th, 2010 at 3:03 pm
Bennett, you say
Why on earth would I propose the merits of a free market if the purchaser can set the price at zero?
If you read some of my comments with Indiana you’ll see I use the example of fans buying a recording for $10,000 – and as you indicate, that’s ONLY if the artist considers that an agreeable exchange.
January 9th, 2010 at 3:20 pm
@Crosbie #56:If Billy has delivered his entire catalog to you then you don’t need any permission to reproduce, stream, or broadcast it.”
But that was not my question, and you know it.
Let me rephrase it, then.
In your imaginary world where “copyright has ended . . . .[is] over, kaput,” can I lawfully operate a subscription streaming service that offers the entire Billy Bragg catalog (that I got for free through P2P file-sharing) without getting permission or paying him anything?
January 9th, 2010 at 3:37 pm
@Billy Bragg
Just was wondering how would the trade-off function?
Do you mean this to be a ‘trade-off’ for the purpose of consensus and the two items weren’t meant to have a direct relationship?
or, Do you mean that file-sharing would be automatically authorised, but any other use of an artists work commercially would be subject to the artist’s choice and control?
Or would the artist declare who can and who can’t use their works upon release? For example, would they put a copyright symbol next to certain tracks and then perhaps a ‘creative commons’ symbol next to others to represent which files are authorised for copying on p2p networks?
Or, how do you mean?
January 9th, 2010 at 3:50 pm
@Crosbie Comment #57:
Of course you can suppose an example where the fan offers $10,000 for the recording.
But I’m asking if, in your “free market,” where there is a failure to agree on price, can the “buyer” just take the recording (as through P2P file-sharing) without paying for it?
Based on much of your writings that I’ve seen, I’m supposing that the answer to my question is Yes, in that circumstance you would allow the buyer to take the recording without paying for it.
And if that’s so, then let me throw back at you a paraphrase of your own rhetorical question: Why on earth would you propose a market structure that would allow the “buyer” to set the price at zero?
January 9th, 2010 at 3:59 pm
@Indiana59
I mean purely within the terms of the consensus that we are trying to construct here. It’s an offer of compromise.
January 9th, 2010 at 4:00 pm
Ok, gotcha
January 9th, 2010 at 4:14 pm
@bennett @Crosbie:
I think what Crosbie is saying is that the artist would sell his master recordings to his fanbase. The fanbase would be the owners of those recordings (instead of a label). The fanbase could then release the recordings via p2p or any other mechanism. The artist would get his money up front (for example $10k). Then, anyone afterwards who shared, sold or used that artists works could do so ‘freely’. The artist would have their fair share upfront. But, the hitch to that is that the artist would not know where to find his ‘newly generated’ fanbase because artist has no data. Once those files are out on the network, they can bounce around the world and the artist would not know where to tour or who to approach as new ‘fans’ to buy his next ‘recordings’. The artist would have to front the recording cost and the marketing cost in advance of finding the fans who are willing to buy those recordings.
January 9th, 2010 at 4:28 pm
cont’d from 63: There are other hitches as well. You would only be able to achieve that $10k (or whatever the price would be) if you got the money up front from the fanbase and then released the recordings all in one go because as soon as the first fan-purchaser bought the recordings, they could immediately do whatever they please with them (upload their copy to a p2p network for example) and any other fan (potential recording purchaser) would be able to obtain a copy at zero cost via p2p. In other words, the motivation for purchasing those master recordings kind of disappears for subsequent purchasers unless the artist takes pre-orders and releases that music all at once.
January 9th, 2010 at 4:59 pm
” In your imaginary world where “copyright has ended . . . .[is] over, kaput,” can I lawfully operate a subscription streaming service that offers the entire Billy Bragg catalog (that I got for free through P2P file-sharing) without getting permission or paying him anything? ”
I hope not, at least not in the near future. Too many current artists ( good and bad ) rely on royalties, and will for a fairly long time. I wouldn’t ask that of any working musician without expecting to get a. laughed out the door, or b. kicked in the ’stones’ and thrown out the door.
I personally think that an artist can create a loyal fanbase and make a decent ( not extravagant living ) from self made and promoted CD’s and or DL’s.
The fact that sales are NOT hurting is proof that fans WANT to pay artists that provide what they like.That’s all i’m saying. Any change will only be in the long term, by new artists avoiding the labels, and ONLY if the net is kept OPEN. Taxes that keep the old model artificially alive are not conducive to this. If the old guard are allowed to ‘lock down’ the net then self promotion and self selling become impossible .. which is pretty much the real goal of the majors.
The first REAL consensus I think .. Fans WANT their favorite artists to get paid.
I DON’T want artists that I don’t support and don’t like to get my money in a ’sideways’ fashion through taxes, OR the collective societies. I HATE those guys. I have no real way of knowing who gets their cut from my dollar.
January 9th, 2010 at 5:03 pm
Bennett, let us say that Billy had delivered his entire catalogue to Fred Smith who had then (without needing permission given no copyright) file-shared it, and then you downloaded it from Fred (whether you paid $1 or nothing is immaterial). In turn (given no copyright) you are also at liberty to stream or share it.
January 9th, 2010 at 5:16 pm
Bennett [60], in a free market (without monopoly) people are at liberty to propose equitable exchanges to each other, and if, and only if both parties consider an exchange equitable and agreeable they can make that exchange.
Of course, one side cannot force an exchange if the other side doesn’t agree to it.
January 9th, 2010 at 5:31 pm
Indiana [63], I’m glad to see you’re finally beginning to understand this extremely simple and ancient business model.
When your fans buy your recordings and sell copies, or far more likely freely share them, then you don’t need to worry about tracking down the new fans that come to like your music – in order to sell another recording to this now even larger fan base. Your fans find you. It is thus important to be easy to find, i.e. have a web site where you offer your recordings for sale to your ever growing fanbase.
January 9th, 2010 at 7:10 pm
@Crosbie , I didn’t have any problems grasping it before; however, I agree with @Dreddsnik in #65 which is one of the ‘hitches’ when it comes to your ’sell you recordings’ scenario. It would mean that due to the ability to exploit an unlimited number of copies to whomever the new owners of those masters are and thus limiting the artists capability to earn royalties from streaming sites. (e.g.: copies being essentially the same thing streams –which we all confirmed/agreed that technically stream and DL are the same thing.) So, the artist who paid for their marketing and recordings upfront (although having recouped that money from the ‘fans’) could see nothing more from their initial investment whilst the ‘fans’ who bought those recordings would benefit from a potentially perpetual royalty. Hence, the artist is again in the same position as he once was with the ‘labels’. argh…….
January 9th, 2010 at 7:14 pm
sorry.. should have been “it would mean that due to the ability of the fans to exploit an unlimited number of copies to ‘whomever/wherever’ as the new owners of those masters limiting the artist’s capability to earn royalties from streaming sites…(then rest of comment)
tend to type faster than I think sometimes.
January 9th, 2010 at 8:29 pm
@Crosbie: Under your system, the first sale (delivery) of a recording could well constitute the last sale of that recording because every subsequent delivery could be from fan to fan through P2P or by means of a subscription streaming service operated by some third party (for which, because you’ve abolished copyright, the artist receives nothing) or any other mode of delivery for which the artist remains uncompensated.
You say to Indy, “When your fans buy your recordings and sell copies, or far more likely freely share them, then you don’t need to worry about tracking down the new fans that come to like your music – in order to sell another recording to this now even larger fan base.” But there is absolutely no reason (other than entirely voluntarily and out of the goodness of their hearts) for her “now even larger fan base” to buy that second recording when they could get it the same they got the first recording — For free through P2P.
January 10th, 2010 at 7:21 am
@Indiana
And that’s exactly the point. If you’re still trying to make an income from royalties (a system that relies entirely on the restriction of liberty), you still aren’t understanding.
Crosbie’s options 3 and 4 actually go hand in hand. The point is to stop relying on artificial restrictions and sell things that people want to pay for. This can be anything from master recordings to concert tickets, and they are all viable ways to making money from the global fanbase that filesharing allows. What’s not viable is demanding that people pay you on a “per-stream” or whatever other archaic basis and sitting back waiting for checks to arrive.
January 10th, 2010 at 8:08 am
@Bennett:
“But there is absolutely no reason (other than entirely voluntarily and out of the goodness of their hearts) for her “now even larger fan base” to buy that second recording when they could get it the same they got the first recording — For free through P2P.”
I don’t understand what you mean. Surely there’s every reason for the new fan base to buy a second, and third, and fourth, and so on, work now they’ve heard, and loved, the first? Or am I misreading you?
Cheers!
January 10th, 2010 at 9:55 am
” “But there is absolutely no reason (other than entirely voluntarily and out of the goodness of their hearts) for her “now even larger fan base” to buy that second recording when they could get it the same they got the first recording — For free through P2P.” ”
Ummmm, this condition exists already, right now. Because of P2P, right now, at this very moment, there is no reason to buy , at all, except for fans support. Billy posted himself that there aren’t any problems selling recordings. In fact, he’s beating crosbie over the head with that ( rightfully so, to a point ).
Loyal fans that are hearing what they like are buying, even though it is already no longer technically necessary.
January 10th, 2010 at 10:07 am
@Jon:
No, you’re do not misread me at all.
If a recording is available for free and the same recording is available for a price that is greater than Zero, why would a person pay for it? And even if, out of love for the artist, some fans paid some amount for some of the artist’s recordings, why should public policy enshrine a system that relegates artists to depend for their livelihood on the kindness of strangers who are – and let’s not forget this – benefitting by consuming the artist’s creative output?
The situation is even worse for those “artists” who are songwriters but not also stage performers.
January 10th, 2010 at 10:51 am
@steelwolf
“If you’re still trying to make an income from royalties (a system that relies entirely on the restriction of liberty), you still aren’t understanding.”
Steelwolf, thanks for once again telling us artists that we don’t understand the business that we’re in. Actually, it’s you who doesn’t understand how royalties work – they are based on restriction of availability, not liberty. Having to pay for something that you are using is – as Bennett pointed out in his post 51 – merely the function of a free market. It is not an attack on your liberty.
Unless of course you believe that you have the right to take things for free.
January 10th, 2010 at 11:06 am
@ Bennett:
“If a recording is available for free and the same recording is available for a price that is greater than Zero, why would a person pay for it?”
To support the artist — as his/her patron, in effect.
I believe most people are intrinsically fair. When prices are reasonable people can — and do, and in their millions — buy online music. One example of this is the success of AllofMP3.com and the sites which sprang up in its wake, many of them selling by download size, not per ‘item’.
The problem is getting a fair percentage of the money to artists, and in much the same way the average person will do the right thing, given a chance, so will most online entrepreneurs, given the means.
The problem is: for the moment, there’s no universally accepted payment formula or method of delivery.
Cheers!
PS – When I started responding, my comment became very long, so I’ve posted it as a separate item here – http://a2f2a.com/2010/01/10/music-fan-manifesto-2010/.
January 10th, 2010 at 11:53 am
” Steelwolf, thanks for once again telling us artists that we don’t understand the business that we’re in. Actually, it’s you who doesn’t understand how royalties work – they are based on restriction of availability, not liberty. Having to pay for something that you are using is – as Bennett pointed out in his post 51 – merely the function of a free market. It is not an attack on your liberty.
Unless of course you believe that you have the right to take things for free. ”
There is already a free maket. You said so yourself when you point out that people are still buying even though free copies exist. No more legalities are necessary.
Unless you believe people need to be forced to pay for what they don’t want in order to punish those that do take for free.
See, we can be ridiculous too.
January 10th, 2010 at 12:27 pm
Keep running your 20th century business in the 21st century world. Oh, right, if that was working for you, you wouldn’t be here.
January 10th, 2010 at 1:31 pm
Indiana [69], the artist HAS BEEN PAID IN FULL. There is no more money. They have sold their work. End of story. No-one can ever sell their work again because it has already been sold.
There is no monopoly any more. There are no licenses. There are no royalties to collect. The art has been paid for. The people are now free to share and build upon this art now that they’ve paid for it. The fans can’t collect any royalty either. The fans bought the art – they did not buy the copyright – the copyright has been neutralised. Copyright is simply a monopoly on sale of copies, but if you’re selling art to your fans instead of copies the last thing you want to do is prosecute them for sharing what they’ve bought. Because the art has been paid for and the copyright neutralised, the artist can still sell copies of it if they think it’s still worthwhile doing so.
January 10th, 2010 at 2:26 pm
Bennett [71],
Remember, my ’system’, if you must call it as such, is simply a free market as exists naturally, as mankind has been used to for aeons. I’m proposing that artists abandon the 18th century privilege of copyright as an ineffective anachronism, that instead of earning them money simply alienates their fans (as the publishing corporations try to squeeze out the last drops of exploitation with ever more vicious enforcement). Without copyright (and without a tax to replace it) we have a free market in which artists and their fans can exchange their art and money.
One of the things to note about selling studio performances as recordings (instead of copies thereof) is that while anyone can make their own copies for nothing (copyright be damned), no-one apart from the artist can produce a recording of their studio performance. So, the fans who want a recording of a studio performance HAVE to pay for it, unless the artist decides to give it away, e.g. as a promotional work if no-one knows they exist and so they have no fans.
The same thing applies to the second recording. One’s fans can’t make free copies of what they don’t have, so they have to pay for it (for its release or publication).
Compare this with live performances. If no fans buy any tickets then the artist won’t perform. You can’t get a bootleg video recording of a concert that hasn’t happened. Similarly, you can’t get a file-shared free copy of a recording if the artist hasn’t produced or released it. Try offering the artist some money if you want to persuade them to give you their work. This is after all the normal principle underlying free market exchanges.
January 10th, 2010 at 2:43 pm
Dreddsnik [74],
Fans are currently buying COPIES of recordings. Billy pointed out that artists are not having any trouble making and selling copies. He wasn’t talking about them making and selling recordings, which hardly anyone is. ANYONE can make and sell copies (even though copyright supposedly restricts this activity to the copyright holder and their licensees). However, only the original artist (with recording skills or engineers) can make and sell recordings, and very few are doing so for sale direct to their fans (or for their commission).
I’ve been suggesting to Billy that as anyone can make copies, artists’ talents are wasted in this area, especially if they effectively give their recording away for nothing. Far better to sell the valuable recording of their artistic performance and let others worry about making a profit selling copies that anyone can make for next to nothing.
January 10th, 2010 at 2:57 pm
Bennett [75],
If an artist is being offered $10,000 for a recording, there is only this one recording (either yet to be recorded, or yet to be released). There is no ’same recording’ available for free. The artist has a free choice here, as do those fans offering money to persuade the artist. It’s a normal trading transaction as anyone should be familiar with.
January 10th, 2010 at 3:24 pm
Billy [76],
The 18th century privilege of copyright suspends the individual’s liberty, their natural right to make copies.
Royalties are payments to the copyright holder in proportion to the number of copies made under license or the sales revenue thereof.
A copyright holder being privileged with the power to prevent others making copies (suspending their liberty to do so) is thus in the position of restricting availability.
Having the natural right to make copies is not a matter of belief. It is recognised by the most learned of IP law scholars, as is the fact that copyright suspends this natural right to copy in order to grant it as a privilege attached to each original work. What we argue about today is whether this suspension is constructive, effective, enforceable, ethical, etc.
January 10th, 2010 at 5:25 pm
@Crosbie & Steelwolf
So, if I hear you right, what you are saying is:
Artist sells their ‘recordings’ to fans
Fans now own said recordings
Fans can then upload those recordings on Streaming sites, sell copies if they wish (rather bootlegged on pastic, vinyl or any other way they wish)
Fans can also upload them to royalty paying streaming sites and receive royalties in perpetuity.
Artist give up any potential royalty system from streaming service providers.
Artist has been given $10k to cover recording costs and initial marketing. This one lump sum is meant to cover initial touring costs, recording costs and initial marketing costs.
After they’ve done that once, they make recording number 2.
However, this time, their fanbase is in China, Japan, The Netherlands, Ethiopia, South Africa, Brazil and Canada. Artist must hope that the new fans will pay for the 2nd recording based upon liking the first one that they got for free so much that they would be willing to buy into the second ‘album’. Only problem is that artist doesn’t know where to tour because he doesn’t have the data about those new ‘fans’ out there in the world. Artist continues to tour in the United Kingdom where he is based, hoping that his new world-wide fan base will fly over to see him live and buy a concert ticket and a t-shirt. But, that’s not an issue. The ‘fan’ is supposed to come to him.
So, second album is made (artist fronts costs for that and sets a price for album.). Then artist must sit and wait for those said new fans to come and ‘find’ their new album and buy those recordings? Meanwhile, all royalties from first album is going to the ‘fans’. There is no marketing cost involved in the second album because the established fanbase and potential ‘new fans’ would simply keep checking artist’s website to buy into artist’s second album.
Is this what you are saying? If so, have you ever introduced any product into the market and made it profitable based upon this concept?
January 10th, 2010 at 6:02 pm
Indiana [85], copyright has been neutralised as part of the deal. There are no royalties payable. People are at liberty to stream, perform, remix, copy, or anything else that copyright would have restricted them from doing. This is what it means to sell one’s art, instead of selling copyright protected copies of it. Usually the artist sells their art and copyright to a publisher, so this isn’t exactly a new transaction for an artist. It’s just that selling it to ones fans (a new class of customer) means that the fans get the art and the copyright is neutralised (no fan needs to stop anyone else making copies, nor charge anyone for streaming it).
The fans have exchanged their money for your art at a price you have all agreed is equitable. Whether you put that money toward costs of touring or buying a new car is entirely up to you. They aren’t buying YOU either. You aren’t contracted to your fans as if to a label. You are at liberty. Your fans are at liberty.
Don’t forget that when your art can be freely shared, streamed, etc. you enjoy free promotion courtesy of your fans. If you’re into touring there are websites designed to help a musician’s fans register interest in a live performance at a local venue.
And it’s your business decision as to whether your next release should be a single or an album.
When, by neutralising copyright, you’ve restored the public’s liberty to the art your fans have purchased, then there are no more royalties. However, there are always more fans ready and willing to encourage you to do more.
January 10th, 2010 at 6:10 pm
@Crosbie 80: hang on there, you said that the fans could sell it and also stream it for royalties on streaming sites once they had bought it. So, from what you said, the fan would be able to earn a perpetual royalty from the streaming services. Since the fan now owns the recordings. Your system doesn’t ‘neutralise’ copyright. The fans who bought the ‘recordings’ are the new ‘copyright holders’ essentially. Artist remains in same situation as he/she was before with the record labels. Artist has received his ‘advance’ (from his fans), fans exploit the recordings (via p2p, streaming sites, social networks, etc. etc.), fan earns royalties. Artist goes and tour (which in turn promotes more streams), fan receives benefit of royalties for those streams (generated by the artist’s promotion and groundwork through the tour.) New fans may be generated, but, they would have been generated under the old ’sell you copies’ system without the need for the artist to also give up their income stream from royalties. Additionally, since the artist sold his recordings to his fans, he is no longer entitled to radio or TV royalties and unless he re-records the tracks, he wouldn’t be allowed to do anything commercial with his works because those recordings are owned by his fans.
January 10th, 2010 at 6:47 pm
Indiana [87],
The fans can sell and stream it, but as copyright is neutralised no-one can prosecute anyone for file-sharing nor demand any royalties concerning the covered work.
The artist does not receive an advance on royalties from the fans. They receive a lump sum as full and complete payment (like a session musician). As part of the exchange the artist neutralises copyright, e.g. by providing their art with a copyleft license.
Because copyright is neutralised the artist is as free as everyone else in possession of the recording or a copy thereof, i.e. free to sing, play, stream, broadcast, copy, remix, etc. whether they get paid for doing so or not. Such total liberty may be shocking, but it’s the liberty that people had before copyright was enacted in the 18th century,
So, the fans aren’t taking your art from you, they’re paying you for producing it and releasing it to them. You can keep a copy of the digital master, and can even make and sell further copies if you want, but I think you’d be better off using your talents producing art that takes such talent (rather than copies that anyone can make with zero talent).
January 10th, 2010 at 7:59 pm
So, streaming sites go out of business? Or can anyone open up a streaming service and not pay anything to anyone? The artist receives a lump sum (similar to an advance). You do realise that a clever group of ‘fans’ would probably simply wait for the other ‘fans’ to release the files eventually and think ‘hang on, I’m paying for new art to be released, but, the majority of the world get it for free’ and since the market is flooded already with ‘free music’ (be it authorized or unauthorized), you would certainly need to rewind the clock to the beginning of the digital age and start from scratch for something like this to work (IMO). It may indeed be working just fine in a parallel universe, however. This is far too outside the box for most new and/or unestablished artists to be able to ‘afford’, let alone embrace. Producing a record plus marketing it to the point of even selling at a small sum like $10k, even if it’s a masterpiece, is no small feat and be reminded that the artist is unlikely to have a marketing budget of any sort when they are starting out.
Established acts may be able to do this and ask for significant sums upfront from their fanbases in order to make and market their recordings. (For example, the way that Marillion did with “Anoraknophobia”…obviously, not having sold their ‘recordings’ or ‘neutralising’ copyright, but, they did ask their fans to invest £16 up front in exchange for the deluxe album.) But, remember, ‘established’ acts have already had huge investment more often than not from a label as a fairly history of marketing money put behind them. The machine that established them under the ‘old’ model is the reason why they have their fanbase today.
No matter what kind of product or service anyone sells to anyone else, the truth of the matter is, a great deal of marketing and PR work goes behind it (whether it’s online communication and PR, direct marketing and advertising via TV, radio, net, posters, flyers, tours and demonstrations, etc. etc.) Products don’t get sold by simply ‘letting the customers come to you’ and nor do recordings (whether copies or masters). How many great products have failed due to low or non-existant marketing budgets? This isn’t ‘corporate’ speak, it’s simply the truth of how products and services receive ‘attention’ from the market.
January 11th, 2010 at 4:03 am
Indiana [89],
Why would streaming sites go out of business? One would think that, with more music to stream that isn’t subject to royalty charges, they would be more able to continue in business. They may even be able to be paid by their own fans for their service in selecting great music – which helps those artists given they can now more easily be discovered now that it doesn’t cost the streaming service money to stream their music.
Despite both being ‘lump sums’, an advance is quite different to a payment. An advance means your audience have to pay the label a hundred times that amount before you see any royalties beyond that, and you still only get a hundredth of the money paid for a copy.
Obviously I don’t recommend artists who are starting up to invest millions in production and marketing before they sell a single work of art. I suggest they give away some of their initial works as promotional loss leaders – given they can be copied and streamed for nothing they can act as free, viral marketing.
At the end of the day if you have no fans who’d pay you money to produce/release a recording then no business model is going to help you – except a tax, which you obtain a share of through spamming everyone with free copies of your work. That’s why a tax is such a bad idea. It doesn’t encourage eclectic music, it encourages heavy promotion of LCD dross.
And as to the idea that selling art instead of copies fails to capture revenue from people who don’t want to pay for your music, who would rather wait for someone else to pay for it; such people aren’t your customers anyway. They aren’t going to pay you under any system (except a tax).
I’m not so concerned whether a free market appeals to every single artist out there, but that at least how it operates is understood, especially that the ancient, tried and tested exchange of art/work for money is not a mythological concept – it’s only been TEMPORARILY substituted by copyright’s suspension of people’s cultural liberty (an artificial monopoly on copies instead of a natural one on the art).
Ask Kutiman how large his marketing budget was. There’s an artist with no short supply of fans who’d love to pay him to produce more of his great work, if only there was a facility to do so. If only copyright didn’t prohibit him making his art, distributing it, copying it, and selling it.
January 11th, 2010 at 7:10 am
@Crosbie I think perhaps you don’t understand how an advance works. It’s a lump sum paid to the artist plus the marketing and promotional costs. Once that sum was recouped via ’sales’, the artist began to receive a ‘cut’.
Personally, in a ‘free market’, I would recommend artists to set themselves up as a business. If the artist has the money to front all the costs, more power to him, however, there is always the option to bring in an ‘investor’ (this investor is not a ‘middleman’, he’s a ‘risk-taker’ who expects some form of return on his investment.) Artist goes in with solid business and marketing plan, investor puts money into the ‘company’. If those investors are the artist’s ‘fans’, then, of course, that would be ideal. But, the artist should retain his rights in any case because in a free market, there is some form of ‘control’ over the goods. The length of those rights could be debated; ultimately, perhaps it should be the artist who decides what kind of license to put on their works and if bittorrent users are not capable of understanding that in reality the legal structure of copyright does exist and isn’t likely to simply disappear and are willing to optin to a license that would authorise that kind of exchange while compensating the artists (not paying for their livlihood, but, at least compensating), it would relieve us all of many of the tensions that do exist on this planet between p2p, governments, copyright holders, intrusive privacy legislation, etc. We are living in this universe Crosbie, not the parallel one. In theory, you plot may work, but, it’s surely not a universal solution, right?
Copyright doesn’t prevent an artist from doing anything. If it’s all his and he wants to sell recordings, sell copies, upload it to p2p, etc. he can. All he needs to do is ask his fans to front him the money. If Kutiman owns his recordings and has written/composed all his material, what’s stopping him (unless he’s under contract?)
January 11th, 2010 at 9:20 am
Indiana [91],
I’m trying to keep things simple. If you want to explore the full panoply of ways in which an advance can be accounted for go for it, but I think you’ll find that it is an ADVANCE of funds based upon notional confidence of the contracted vendor of copies/licenses that they will eventually recoup it through exploitation of the copyright and accumulation of the agreed royalties due to the artist.
Indiana, you can’t recommend how to exploit the monopoly of copyright in a free market. It’s a contradiction in terms. So, getting an investor to exploit an artist’s copyright is not a free market solution. It’s a copyright based business model in a non-free market.
It is this universe in which copyright no longer works. That’s why I’m here trying to help artists understand how to do business in this new era when copyright no longer prevents unauthorised copies. If you’re happy that copyright protects your monopoly over the reproduction and use of your published work, you’ve got no problem have you? Carry on selling copies and suing your fans.
Even though you haven’t made the paradigm shift into this parallel universe, in which copyright doesn’t work, at least you’re beginning to understand my explanation of how within that universe artists can sell their work directly to their fans (instead of the reproduction monopoly to a record label for them to sell copies, as happens in your universe).
Kutiman can’t legally distribute, share, or sell his work because through enjoying his natural liberty to share and build upon the culture he finds around him he has infringed umpteen copyrights (it would take him years and umpteen bars of gold bullion in research and legal costs let alone licensing fees before he could get his work cleared). And you persist in this brainwashed litany that ‘copyright doesn’t prevent an artist from doing anything’.
January 11th, 2010 at 9:15 pm
@Crosbie , I didn’t mention the exploitation of copyright. I suggested a situation where artists/bands set themselves up as a ‘business’. In general, no matter what is being exploited (concert tickets, t-shirts, electronic devices, chalk, cheese, etc.) there is an initial investment to be made in the ‘business’. Whoever fronts that initial investment generally shares it with the visionary/ artist/ cheese maker, etc. With an ever expanding market and loads of fish at sea, under ‘free market’, I would suggest that artists/ bands set themselves up as a business (as per my comment 91).
As per Kutiman, I’m not sure how he could ever ‘infringe’ unless he hasn’t attributed the work of others. I can cover anyone elses song in the world, I just need to fill in the CATCO database who the author, composer is and they receive a royalty because I have used their works for commercial purposes. I’m not sure how he violated copyright unless he was passing that work off as his own?
January 11th, 2010 at 10:14 pm
@Crosbie
In this universe, copyright still does exist and the money and power behind it are creating such forces (Acta, digital Britain, etc.) which under what is currently legal can and will lead to restriction. If you have read Digital Britain clauses (if I remember correctly) 10, 11, and 17, you will see where the drama and excuse and vulnerabilty of a complacent and somewhat indecisive and protective media industry can lead to. This is the real universe that we live in. It’s fine to acknowledge some form of natural right that you believe was once restricted in the form of copyright. However, those decisions were made in order to protect and conserve creativity and culture at that point in time. Now, those laws could be either used to harvest creativity or to control society. (Now, that may sound like a very extreme statement, but, if you look closely at what is being introduced, you’ll find it hard to disagree.). So, given the circumstances, it is necessary for a group of us to a) form a consensus b) create an alternative eco-system c) begin to see eye-to-eye on the more urgent issues. Debating ‘natural rights’ is honorable. I just wonder how far it would bring us? In an ideal universe, perhaps a parallel one (I do believe in parallel universes, by the way, so, it’s not a piss-take), you’re arguments and ideas might be working. But, the forces or history and the present have led us to this universe. Many of your points I completely accept and agree with, but, in my hard-headed mind, I can only see us devising a plot somewhat strategically that will show a willingness to compromise and an economic advantage for all parties. So, we all would need to put our business hat on. If not for any other period of time, but especially in the economic climate of this universe presently. How do we show them the money, the economic and social benefit which could be more fruitful than imposing legislation like Digital Britain (3-strikes) and an ACTA agenda? Billy is right, there is no other way than to form a consensus. In order to do that, we really need to join up and agree to the real issues at hand right now. Once we do that, we’ll be able to sort out loads of peripheral issues. This, of course, is how I play chess. We have to first of all be on the board and then work out the strategy to protect what we all agree upon. (IMO)
January 12th, 2010 at 4:59 am
Indiana [93],
In [91] you said “But, the artist should retain his rights in any case because in a free market, there is some form of ‘control’ over the goods.”
Now, by ‘rights’ you presumably mean ‘copyright’, which is a privilege (aka legally granted right=>legal right=>’right’), not a (natural) right.
Artists do not need to worry about retaining (natural) rights because they are inalienable. It takes a government to legislate their suspension, e.g. in order to create privileges such as copyright.
So, having a transferable privilege that is a monopoly on the reproduction of a covered work is not something that can happen in a free market. The lack of state granted monopolies (and/or criminally enforced monopolies) is precisely what the ‘free’ bit in ‘free market’ is supposed to connote.
In a free market, you can’t stop other people copying and selling copies of your work (or ‘goods’ if you prefer), nor can you control what they do with their purchases, e.g. “You can buy this recording of me singing this song, but you can’t copy it or sing it yourself unless you pay me”.
I wouldn’t propose the reversion to a free market if that meant monopolies and constraints on people’s cultural liberty were compatible with such a thing now would I?
As to Kutiman, he has violated no-one’s rights (he gave ample attribution), but he has infringed umpteen copyrights.
I’ll point out that copyright is nothing to do with attribution, and provides no recourse against misattribution. That is covered by the natural right to truth, aka moral rights.
Here you are demanding to be able to prevent anyone else using your published work unless they get your permission or pay you, and in the same breath you say there’s nothing preventing Kutiman using or selling his work that uses/builds upon the work of others – as long as he provides attribution.
I’m not sure you understand that copyright can’t give you control over others’ use of your work without suspending the liberty of others to use your work.
Your privilege of controlling others = loss of EVERYONE else’s liberty.
The problem with privileges and their empowerment of the respective holder is the allure of that power over others. The holder will do everything to kid themselves that they should have that power, and still pretend that those who they have power over are still as free as they’ve always been, not at all subject to their will (except when they don’t behave quite as they should).
You can’t control other artists’ use of your published work and claim they still retain their artistic freedom. Well, you can try, and many do…
January 12th, 2010 at 5:33 am
Indiana [94], there are many others who might agree that it’s best for both society and slaves if they petition their kinder masters and legislators for regulations that give them better treatment, perhaps a statutory two days a week of rest, and compulsory retirement and manumission at 60. You can then seek consensus among all concerned parties for such regulations on the keeping of slaves to be legislated.
So when you suggest that principle might be fine in a parallel universe, but it’s not really constructive in this one, there’s really not much prospect that those who hold such principles are going to see any implied intrinsic merit of ‘consensus’ as anything except a logical fallacy.
So fuck consensus. Let’s figure out what’s right and then figure out a way of doing what’s right. It’s right for people to use, copy, perform, share, or build upon the published works they’ve bought or been given – whether they get paid for doing so or not. No fee, levy or tax is due. It’s right that artists should be able to exchange their work with their fans for whatever money both consider agreeable – without having to get permission or pay any fee or royalty to anyone else (for the use of any published works they’ve bought or been given).
We’re back to those three options:
1) Improve/reinforce copyright.
2) Tax the Internet to legalise (some of) the liberties (suspended by copyright) that people are reasserting their natural right to.
3) Abandon copyright. Don’t waste time petitioning/waiting for a substitute tax. Liberate your fans and start selling your art directly to them TODAY!
If you don’t give a damn about restoring people’s liberty and care only for money, I’ll point out that the third option is the only way in which 100% instead of 1% of the fans’ money actually ends up in the artist’s pocket instead of a publishing corporation or tax collection administration.
January 12th, 2010 at 3:32 pm
@crosbie In this universe, if you want to use other peoples works (sample or cover their work) and then release it, all you have to do is ask for it. Generally, nobody turns you down unless you have done something with their work that they find would ‘hurt’ or be abusive or put their work in a bad light. I still don’t see how Kutiman could be an infringer unless he didn’t take time to do that. And, if he hasn’t released those works, then, it’s nearly impossible for him to be an infringer and if someone actually covers a song, you don’t need to get permission, you just cover it and fill in the details of the author/composer in CATCO. If it’s you who has made the recording, you only have an obligation to the writer/composer for using their song. Songwriter/composers don’t sell recordings or copies, they simply write and compose and the royalty system is one of the only ways that they receive an income. This is the universe we live in. Nothing that you say on these forums will change that truth. It’s impossible to simply ‘abandon’ copyright just because you want it to be abandoned. Composers rely on the societies to help them collect because few artists or composers have the time or money to appoint someone to do that for them full time.
January 12th, 2010 at 5:38 pm
Indiana [97],
I guess there were people a few hundred years ago who similarly expressed mystification at abolitionists’ unwillingness to accept things the way they were, their refusal to accept that slavery was the only way agriculture and industry could remain viable, that a slave was quite free to do anything he liked – as long as he first obtained permission from his master of course, it being unlikely to be unreasonably withheld.
Just as it’s possible to set slaves free, so it is possible for artists to set their audience free – free from constraint by their privilege of copyright.
The fact that an artist’s audience has been set free by the artist does not prevent them commissioning or purchasing the artist’s work. If anything, it encourages such business. People who become the artist’s customers of their own volition are going to be better payers than those threatened with prosecution or forced to pay by taxation.
Kutiman deserves a separate thread so I’ll not rebut your vacuous point that if he hasn’t done anything to infringe copyright he can’t have infringed copyright.
January 12th, 2010 at 7:09 pm
The only problem with your scenario is that you are hoping to ‘free’ people who are already ‘free’ and in the meanwhile, in this universe and in the economy that we all live, thrive, or die in, you are creating a downward spiral for artist’s and composers enslaving them and denying them income streams that they depend upon.
As far a this Kutiman observation, you’ve said he ‘cannot release’ or sell his recordings because he has ‘infringed’ copyright. But, it looks to me that he is on an indie label and he has released his works. So, he’s obviously under contract. Deals are deals.
January 12th, 2010 at 9:24 pm
Sorry, pretending doesn’t make it so. Also, “denying them income streams?” It stopped being a viable long-term income stream in 2001, and it’s rapidly becoming more like a trickle. The smart response is to find a new method. Yours seems to be, “pretend the old way still works and find ways of artificially propping it up.”
January 14th, 2010 at 1:28 pm
@steelworlf, ??? whaaa? Royalty income has not stopped being a viable income at all. And with the more and more emerging streaming sites, it will continue to be a viable source if the labels begin to open up licenses by the thousands upon thousands rather than simply to such a hand full at the moment.
At the moment, your method seems to be ‘have artists sell their master recordings’ and let anyone in the world use them for their own financial gain by the masses without any compensation for use. Music is like running water, you turn it on and off like a tap. Music has always been owned by the creators except when they have done deals with labels or if they have done deals with other investors. Music is not physical. It never has been. When TV, radio stations, websites, and other profitable organisations USE music, it is right that they pay the composers/songwriters/ artists for USE. In your universe, you are saying “sell the masters to your fans and then let your fans mass-produce and sell, collect revenues and royalties’. This puts artists in a similar situation to what they were in with the labels, except that at least with the labels they had tour and marketing support and an advance to live from.
The people are already ‘free’. They can buy copies, download freebies and send anyone links to plenty of free-streaming sites where they can play the music as many times they like whenever they like.
January 14th, 2010 at 10:07 pm
” The people are already ‘free’. They can buy copies, download freebies and send anyone links to plenty of free-streaming sites where they can play the music as many times they like whenever they like. ”
Really ?
I know a few people ( Marie Lindor, Tanya Anderson, Tenise Barker, Jammie Thomas-Rassett ) who would like to have a word with you about that.
January 16th, 2010 at 10:34 am
@dreddsnik Obviously, those people have been targeted by the RIAA for distributing files in an ‘unauthorised’ manner. But, there’s nothing to stop people from pointing people to URL’s where they can find music and stream it (and in doing so, obviously, copy it) in an ‘authorised’ way. These days there are plenty of services anyway. I agree that suing people is stupid.
January 16th, 2010 at 12:05 pm
Sorry, That’s not so ‘obvious’, especially since the labels lawyers were not required to provide any sort of proof. Even so,
2 million dollars ?
2 million fucking dollars ? For ‘potential’, UNPROVEN non-commercial sharing ?
In order for any of those victims to share an equivalent dollar amount they would have had to be connected constantly and sharing non-stop for about 50 years or so, at normal residential bandwidth speeds.
” pointing people to URL’s where they can find music and stream it (and in doing so, obviously, copy it) in an ‘authorised’ way. ”
The RIAA contends that copying from streams in this manner is also infringing and subject to legal action.
The RIAA does not officially recognize any type of copying as legal and non-infringing. With lawsuits being an available avenue, they will be misused against non-commercial POTENTIAL infringers. I think ( probably wrong ) that this may be one thing Crosbie is trying to get at. As long as the law can be used as a cannon, it will be, as long as people like the FAC are willing to respond to false fears. He may believe ( and I’m not sure I totally disagree ) that if that weapon is permanently removed then all of you will see that your fears have always been unfounded. The difference between Crosbie and I is timing.
He says now is the time.
I think in about 20 years, when the only label artists left are ‘Dolls’ and ‘Duffers’ will be the time.
January 16th, 2010 at 4:11 pm
BTW, it’s good for your fans to see that you think 2 mil is about right for such ‘obvious’ infringers.
January 16th, 2010 at 6:21 pm
@dreddsnik yes, but, eventually, they (RIAA) will have to stop being stupid.
January 17th, 2010 at 12:18 am
This is the organization that put forth the claim that “home taping is killing the music”. The organization who’s response to napster was “we sell records, we’re not interested in mp3’s”(other than shutting down distro sites that is). They are like Mr. Magoo, bumbling along blindly without any clue. I have no particular wish for them to “stop being stupid”, all that means is they’ll get better at harassing people. I have only one wish for them. Fucking die already.
January 17th, 2010 at 10:32 am
Remember, this are the kinds of people Mrs. Gregg wants to put in charge of collecting the revenue from the Lincoff Tax Proposal.
January 17th, 2010 at 2:00 pm
@Indiana #106
There is a difference between being stupid and being arrogant. I contend that the RIAA are the latter, a characteristic that is far less likely to change. And narcissistic enough to believe that they don’t have to – a characteristic that will never change. As in, the world will cease to exist when they do. For what it’s worth, the RIAA is living in a paralell universe. Crosbie is living in the world of dreams. Tomorrow in the USA we celebrate dreams (MLK Day).
January 17th, 2010 at 2:42 pm
@bill, The RIAA is living in the past, they are not in a parallel universe, however, because they seem to have too much influence not to be included inside of this one. Crosbie’s ‘world of dreams’ doesn’t seem to be fully baked. I’ve asked him several times about writer’s/composers within his scenario because within his scenario, their income streams would be wiped out.
January 17th, 2010 at 2:45 pm
@108 Steelwolf
Absolutely not! You are completely mistaken and such a thing has never been mentioned. There has never been mention of using the RIAA as a collection authority. That’s completely absurd and outrageous. Likewise, the Lincoff proposal never mentions any form of ‘tax’.
January 17th, 2010 at 2:46 pm
Why would I (an completely independent artist /composer) want the RIAA to collect on my behalf? That’s simply nonsense.
January 17th, 2010 at 4:21 pm
” Why would I (an completely independent artist /composer) want the RIAA to collect on my behalf? That’s simply nonsense. ”
Does SX collect on your behalf ?
January 17th, 2010 at 6:31 pm
Of coruse SX does NOT collect on my behalf! SX is only ONE collection group and I believe that they have given all collection societies a very bad name. Like I said, you can’t call all Muslims or all Catholics bad just because of a few extreme groups who call themselves Muslims, yet blow up airplanes and trains. Sound Exchange should not be considered any type of example and if they were to have members of the RIAA on their board of direction, that should be deemed a pure and utter conflict of interest and should not be allowed.
January 17th, 2010 at 6:35 pm
@Dreddsnik The way normal societies work is that an artist /composer / or musician would sign up to a society (similar to signing up to a union who represents a worker). An artist would declare their works and give the necessary information about those works (who wrote, co-wrote, public performances, ISRC codes, etc. data pertaining to that work). The society then acts on behalf of the artist/composer to collect royalties. With Sound Exchange, somehow they have been ‘allowed’ to collect for anybody and everybody. How does that work? (Answer, it can’t, shouldn’t and won’t). Clearly, SX is US based and perhaps somehow they are allowed to do this on behalf of all american based sound recordings? I don’t know enough about them, except that something doesn’t ring true about the way that they operate.
January 17th, 2010 at 10:42 pm
So what collection agency collects on your behalf ?
January 17th, 2010 at 10:50 pm
PRS Perhaps …
” In 2008 the PRS expanded their legal battle to require licensing to include 61 year old mechanic, Paul Wilson, who plays his radio when he works by himself [7] a bakery that plays a radio in a private room at the back of the shop[8], a woman who plays classical radio to calm her horses[9], and community centres that allow children to sing carols in public [10].
Steve Pendlebury of The Bolton News has written about the controversial tactics, saying: “Radio stations pay large amounts of money to licensing organizations PRS and PPL for the music they play, and music has been on the radio for many years. During the war, there were programmes like Workers Playtime and Music While You Work. Now, many radio stations have features about workplaces. If the PRS force people to switch their radios off then how are these stations going to survive? Music has to be heard before people go out and buy it.” [11]
Further problems arise with the tactics used by the PRS in the United Kingdom because BBC radio is publicly financed through the TV licence fee and everyone has the right to listen to it free of charge.
In March 2009, the online video-sharing site YouTube removed all premium music videos in the UK, many of which were supplied by record labels, due to a failure to find “mutually acceptable terms for a new licence” with the PRS.[12] [13] In return, PRS established the Fair Play for Creators campaign in order to provide a forum in which musicians could “publicly demonstrate their concern over the way their work is treated by online businesses”.[14] The media coverage caused by the campaign included a letter written to The Times newspaper by David Arnold, Jazzie B, Billy Bragg, Guy Chambers, Robin Gibb, Pete Waterman, Mike Chapman, Wayne Hector, Pam Sheyne and Debbie Wiseman.[15] A deal was finally agreed in September 2009 between PRS and Google, the owner of the video-sharing website, and music videos were again given the go-ahead. [16]
In April 2009 Wiltshire Constabulary refused to pay licence fees of £32,000 and instead issued an edict to its staff that music could not be played in the workplace. It is reported by the police that the licence requirements extended to police vehicles but the PRS claim in a Telegraph Newspaper report that this is not true. The same report states that 38 of 49 forces currently hold PRS licences.
Following a furore in the media,[17][18] the PRS apologised in October 2009 to ’singing granny’ Sandra Burt, a 56-year-old shelf-stacker at a village in Clackmannanshire for heavy-handedly persuing her for singing to herself while stacking shelves. She was initially told that she would be prosecuted and fined thousands of pounds. However, they subsequently acknowledged their mistake with a bunch of flowers.[19]
Yes Yes, Wikipedia, but it’s just a start, and they sound no different so far than their american counterparts. I am willing to bet that further research would yield the very same ‘conflicts of interest’ running PRS.
January 18th, 2010 at 6:57 am
Thanks for picking up on my point, Dredd. I’ll explain for Indiana’s benefit: every collecting society around today is the same, stocked with people who get paid regardless of whether or not artists get any money. Many artists, Indiana included, are under the illusion that a “good” society can be created that while in the exact same position as previous incarnations will somehow remain “pure.”
January 18th, 2010 at 1:20 pm
@ Indiana #110
“Crosbie’s ‘world of dreams’ doesn’t seem to be fully baked. I’ve asked him several times about writer’s/composers within his scenario because within his scenario, their income streams would be wiped out.”
I don’t see this as being an accurate statement at all. In Crosby’s “world of dreams” the songwriter makes their income the same way the building inspector or plumber makes theirs – payment on delivery – one work at a time. I think this has been a consistent argument all along. I’ve been involved in a few independent releases and the mechanicals for cover tunes had to be paid up-front at the pressing facility. I don’t know if Big Music has to play by those rules, but we did or no discs. So essentially the performer is paying the writer up-front anyway. In at least one case, that meant paying a dead writer. Why not contract writers for new songs? Of course, that would mean that writers would have to keep writing new songs for the income stream to continue, but I thought that was the “public benefit” that IP supporters claim (but don’t deliver). The other option is to actually perform their songs if they are so inclined – as many are.
January 18th, 2010 at 8:46 pm
” Why not contract writers for new songs? Of course, that would mean that writers would have to keep writing new songs for the income stream to continue, ”
Now that’s just crazy talk ..
January 18th, 2010 at 9:27 pm
“Why not contract writers for new songs?”
Never work.
Back to the drawing board …
Cheers!
January 19th, 2010 at 2:22 am
@Jon #121
Or so Bono would have everyone believe. His sense of Irish history is about as flawed as his sense of American history. (“Early morning, April 4th”)From wikipedia’s biography on Turlough Carolan – “the last great Irish harper-composer and is considered by many to be Ireland’s national composer.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turlough_Carolan
“At the age of twenty-one, being given a horse and a guide, he set out to travel Ireland and compose songs for patrons. For almost fifty years, Carolan journeyed from one end of the country to the other, composing and performing his tunes.”
pre-copyright
January 19th, 2010 at 6:58 am
” Why not contract writers for new songs? Of course, that would mean that writers would have to keep writing new songs for the income stream to continue, ”
Wait, you mean they’d have to work for a living?!
January 19th, 2010 at 9:49 am
@bill The artists are not paying for complete songs in full ‘up front’ even when they pay their mechanical licenses upon release. Very few artists would be able to afford to simply buy songs, then pay for the recordings themselves, then pay for the marketing, tour, etc in order to get their fans to eventually buy their ‘recordings’. And in a world where it’s all ‘free’ anyway (as Steelwolf has pointed out) where’s the viability? Especially when this virtual price tag of $10k has been repeatedly used. You would be looking at at least that much just to have a string orchestra and arrangement done on a couple of tracks.
Writers tend to keep writing new songs all the time regardless. It’s just when they sell their music outright, it puts a strain on the artist and until the artist records the song, who knows if it would make the album or would ‘work’ for that artist in the end. It’s a spec process that songwriter’s go through. It doesn’t mean that they don’t work for a living just because they get some pennies from royalties every 6 months. They have to continually crank out compositions and songs regardless. It’s fairly clear that you don’t understand that world very well or you wouldn’t be making these claims!
January 19th, 2010 at 11:06 am
@Indiana “It’s fairly clear that you don’t understand that world very well or you wouldn’t be making these claims!”
I understand the working world pretty damn well. So did Carolan. You need to brush up.
January 19th, 2010 at 12:52 pm
@Steelwolf #123
It’s amazing to me how often those who defend privilege don’t want to be perceived as being privileged. That perception might not happen in an alternate universe, but that’s the way it is in this one. I think Billy understands this, thus his quick dodge of class issues early on a2f2a. I’m not sure Indiana does. 99.9 percent of the working world get along without copyright. I’m not saying that those who enjoy the advantages of copyright are rich or lazy. That cetainly wouldn’t be a true statement (though some are). But they are ALL privileged. The most important aspects of a2f2a so far (IMO) have been to highlight those artists that are getting along just fine without privilege and the methods they are using. Not the tiresome “debates” with Billy & Indiana. If I wanted to hear someone pitching their product, I wouldn’t have a pop-up blocker.
January 19th, 2010 at 1:50 pm
Agreed. I’d love to be able to get a feed of just those posts.
January 19th, 2010 at 2:17 pm
” The most important aspects of a2f2a so far (IMO) have been to highlight those artists that are getting along just fine without privilege and the methods they are using. Not the tiresome “debates” with Billy & Indiana. If I wanted to hear someone pitching their product, I wouldn’t have a pop-up blocker. ”
Examples of artists ( of any media ) using alternate methods that are posted here are the ones typically most ignored. Strange that.
That’s also what I THOUGHT A2F2A would be more about .. demonstrating and highlighting alternate means of reaching the fans directly, bypassing the typical middlemen.
January 19th, 2010 at 2:27 pm
@Indiana,
So PRS IS collecting on your behalf, I take it ?
January 19th, 2010 at 5:28 pm
So, now creative people are ‘privileged’? How so? What’s stopping any of your from making a record, writing a song, writing a book, making a film and then publishing it? How is this some ’small’ group of people who ‘privilege’ from copyright? There is absolutely no rule or law stopping anyone from publishing their work and so far, I haven’t read of any band on A2f2a who said that they were renouncing their copyright and selling their ‘recordings’ (not copies). Artist’s/ bands who chose to give their music away for free in return for a contribution haven’t waived their copyright, they’ve simply made a choice. It is their choice. They are the creator. The same for any creative person to make the choice of what they wish to release or how they wish to release their work. I haven’t read about any artist/band here on a2f2a who said that they would allow their works to be used commercially, for example, for free and so far, I haven’t read anything about artists who have bought songs from a composer/songwriter in advance and then sold their ‘recordings’ rather than copies. I’d also like to know whwere the statistic of 99.9 percent of the working world who ‘get along’ without copyright comes from.
January 19th, 2010 at 5:32 pm
@Dreddsnik SACEM
January 20th, 2010 at 1:32 am
If there is anyone on this list besides Indiana who doesn’t understand IP as privilege and needs it explained, simply look it up on dictionary.com. 3rd meaning being the most applicable.
January 20th, 2010 at 8:39 am
@bill sorry, when you look it up on dictionary.com, you get “internet protocal” for IP. When you look up “Intellectual Property” it doesn’t mention any privilege that has been given exclusively to a set group of individuals. Anyone can created intellectual property and anyone can be protected under that legal umbrella. Copyright is a legal right in the world that we live in right now. There isn’t anything that we can do about that right now. Nothing is to stop people from selling their works directly to their fans, except that when they use other people’s works to do so without declaring it, they are infringing other people’s intellectual property (as in using someone else’s song).
Would you let your banker use your money without knowing that you would get interest or a return from him using your money? Of course, it’s speculative, your stocks could crash. But, even for a simple savings account? It’s money you already earned isn’t it? You already were paid once. You aren’t selling your money, you are simply letting the bank use it.
January 20th, 2010 at 8:46 am
priv⋅i⋅lege
/ˈprɪvəlɪdʒ, ˈprɪvlɪdʒ/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [priv-uh-lij, priv-lij] Show IPA noun, verb, -leged, -leg⋅ing.
Use privilege in a Sentence
See images of privilege
Search privilege on the Web
–noun
1. a right, immunity, or benefit enjoyed only by a person beyond the advantages of most: the privileges of the very rich.
2. a special right, immunity, or exemption granted to persons in authority or office to free them from certain obligations or liabilities: the privilege of a senator to speak in Congress without danger of a libel suit.
3. a grant to an individual, corporation, etc., of a special right or immunity, under certain conditions.
4. the principle or condition of enjoying special rights or immunities.
5. any of the rights common to all citizens under a modern constitutional government: We enjoy the privileges of a free people.
6. an advantage or source of pleasure granted to a person: It’s my privilege to be here.
7. Stock Exchange. an option to buy or sell stock at a stipulated price for a limited period of time, including puts, calls, spreads, and straddles.
This ‘privilege’ that you claim that ‘copyright holders’ have isn’t something that is exclusive to only a certain sector of citizens. It’s granted to everybody who creates. So, are you saying that all creators are privileged because they’ve chosen to create and someone who isn’t a creator is somewhow underprivileged simply because they don’t create their own works but chose to use other people’s work instead?
January 20th, 2010 at 12:00 pm
cop·y·right
n.
The legal right granted to an author, composer, playwright, publisher, or distributor to exclusive publication, production, sale, or distribution of a literary, musical, dramatic, or artistic work.
priv⋅i⋅lege
n.
3. a grant to an individual, corporation, etc., of a special right or immunity, under certain conditions.
Copyright is the government-granted privilege to maintain an artificial monopoly. It is not a “right,” nor is it necessary.
January 20th, 2010 at 12:09 pm
#134
Dictionary.com, LLC. Copyright © 2010. All rights reserved.
Strike one.
January 20th, 2010 at 2:23 pm
” Would you let your banker use your money without knowing that you would get interest or a return from him using your money? ”
Yes, because this is exactly the same thing ( rolls eyes ).
COPYRIGHT is a limited monopoly PRIVILEGE.
Examine the words LIMITED ( since it keeps getting extended, this term no longer has any meaning ) and MONOPOLY.
So are you sating that all artists are bankers and should get interest ? ( I can do the ‘red herring’ thing too ).