“I created a poll at SurveyMonkey,” says David L.
“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.”
It’s David’s response to suggestions that a2f2a.com is little more than a lot of hot air with no one agreeing on anything, and that to be effective, we need to come up with solid recommendations we all support, artists and fans both.
That’s my phrasing, not his.
The survey is limited to 100 responses, but if it produces any kind of consensus, it’s worth the effort.
Cheers! And thanks again, David …
Jon Newton
January 9th, 2010 at 9:21 am
only problem with this survey Jon, is that it has various people’s names above the ‘ideas’ of the poll and those ‘ideas’ might not reflect the viewpoint of the individual entirely. I think our names maybe should be removed from the various sections.
January 9th, 2010 at 10:00 am
“I think our names maybe should be removed”
Good point. Over to you, David …
Cheers!
January 10th, 2010 at 9:35 pm
Hey, any idea when the poll results will be posted here?
January 11th, 2010 at 4:25 pm
I’ve been without internet access for the weekend, but results are forthcoming as soon as possible. As of this post, there have been 24 responses. So far the statement with the most consensus is “I DENOUNCE the ACTA” with 20/24 responses (87%). I’ll update with more as soon as I write it up.
@Indiana: My thought with attributing “ideas” to people was that it would be easier to find the discussion about those ideas as could go back to those comments. It’s easier to search for a name than an idea. I didn’t mean to imply that each set of ideas were endorsed by the individual, only that I found the idea in their writing. I’ll take off the names and the poll should be updated shortly.
January 11th, 2010 at 5:27 pm
Accuracy in attribution is important and a moral right.
I didn’t notice any misattribution concerning my views or writing, so I see no need to remove my name.
January 11th, 2010 at 9:06 pm
@Crosbie and David, I didn’t see any misattribution either necessarily except that in the sense that the statements were ‘general’ and with some of the statements, within the discussions, it could be inferred that each statement was concise and concrete and seen as the ‘author’s’ black/white option. For example, in my statement no. 2, I say something like ‘any’ legislation would be ridiculous.. when indeed, there may exist some form of legislation that could actually be beneficial. Similarly, with other statements. I was just thinking that since the statements were formulated as a guess towards possible consensus, perhaps not attaching our names to them would be a) more anonymous and b) more general ?
not to worry, just was an observation 
xx
January 11th, 2010 at 10:31 pm
@Indiana, Crosbie: I have tried to be as accurate as possible in attribution. As a compromise, I have added a disclaimer to each question and the survey as a whole that the options do not necessarily reflect each author’s opinion. If you still would like your name redacted, let me know.
Here are the results as of 1/11:
http://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=0Aird0I5GFTdedFNkTmlCOVU5MjhjVHhhclBvN3lFV0E&hl=en
There was a section for comments below each question section; those have been included as well.
How to interpret the results:
First column is the group that the questions were in.
Second column is the text of the question.
Third column is the response percent. That is the percentage of people who clicked that yes, they agree with the statement.
Fourth column is number of yes responses.
Fifth column is the total number of responses for that question.
Roughly you can use response percent as an estimate of agreement with a statement.
Questions with the most agreement:
3b) I DENOUNCE the ACTA. 87%
2) INDIVIDUALS WHO FILE-SHARE FOR NO GAIN OR PROFIT SHOULD NOT BE PERSECUTED 83.3%
2b) I DENOUNCE a Three Strikes policy/law. 78.3%
3) NET NEUTRALITY MUST BE DEFENDED AND MAINTAINED FOR THE BENEFIT OF ALL 75%
3c) I 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?). 75%
1) ARTISTS NEED TO BE PAID BY THE PEOPLE WHO ENJOY AND EXPLOIT THEIR WORK 70.8%
2) P2p in every form will exist forever. There is no available power to stop or control this phenomenon. I agree that any legislation that tries to forbid this inevitable cultural exchange is technically impossible and likewise ridiculous. 70.8%
1) Decentralised P2P (with or without specific software applications) by private individuals where no money is made, should be entirely exempt [from persecution], and not divided into downloader/uploader distinction. (John Barron) 69.6%
January 12th, 2010 at 3:49 am
David L,
I think it would still be interesting to do the poll I originally suggested, i.e. the “Which of these 3 views most corresponds to your own”. But, never mind…
The interpolation of results from your amalgamated ‘kitchen sink’ survey to the far simpler poll I suggested is 3:5:9 mapping to copyright:Internet tax:free market. Which indicates 9:8 in favour of a free market. In other words, not much hope for Billy’s consensus.
Instead of pursuing an unachievable consensus I’d suggest a2f2a could have three chapters:
1) COPYRIGHT: How can artists get everyone to resume obeying copyright so they can continue selling copies to their fans?
2) TAX: How should an Internet tax operate (via ISPs) in order that fans are exempt from prosecution for file-sharing?
3) FREE MARKET: How can artists sell their art directly to their fans whilst neutralising copyright entirely so that everyone’s cultural liberty is restored?
January 12th, 2010 at 3:55 am
Indiana, yes you are right to worry that in some cases the attribution is not clearly indicating that the question is only proposed by the named person as opposed to being the view of the named person. The latter risks constituting misrepresentation.
January 12th, 2010 at 9:45 am
I would have guessed the response to that would have been 24/24 – 100%. Does anyone here think a trade agreement they cant even READ due the the fact it is secret is a good idea? Why? I would like to hear from the from the four people why a trade agreement that only reps from giant corporations are allowed to see should NOT be condemned.
January 12th, 2010 at 10:49 am
Monkey,
I’d just like to hear from 24 different people rather than the half dozen usual suspects
January 12th, 2010 at 11:31 am
@Billy
Do you think there was voter fraud?
January 12th, 2010 at 11:44 am
Billy, the fastest way to kill a discussion forum is to tell the posters with something to say to keep quiet so others can participate.
The other misunderstanding people have about discussion forums is that they exist to entertain the readers – as opposed to facilitate discussion on a particular subject between those who have something to discuss on that subject.
So, if you want to hear from more people it’s more likely to be achieved by finding more things to discuss, that prompt more people to discuss them, joining in yourself and encouraging EVERYONE else to participate in discussion.
The quality of discussion is determined by those engaged in it, not those reading it.
So, Billy, stop wingeing and start participating. If you are seen to engage in discussion then that will be more likely to entice others to engage in discussion with you (possibly even presenting viewpoints you find agreeable).
January 12th, 2010 at 1:30 pm
@10 Monkey
Let me clear something up with the”I DENOUNCE the ACTA” result.
I made a mistake, only 23 people answered that question, one person skipped it. The real result should be 20/23.
1 person selected the “I support the ACTA” question. (1/23)
1 person did not select either of those statements.
Essentially:
Against ACTA 20/23
For ACTA 1/23
Abstaining 1/23 (or 2/23)
I think this is as close as we’re going to come to a consensus…
@Crosbie
I’m not entirely satisfied with the poll either. I learned a lot though and have some things I would do differently next time. I think it’s best used as a guide for group interest. I’m sure there will be more polls that will build off this. It’s a start though. I don’t know if you’ve seen the survey recently but I’ve updated it to make it clear that questions don’t necessarily reflect the author’s view.
@12 Monkey
Being open and anonymous, there’s certainly the possibility. However, if the best someone could do stuffing the ballot box is 70-80%, they didn’t do a very good job cheating the system. If you look at the full results, there’s enough diversity in answers that I would be skeptical of voter fraud.
@all
I looked at the results and we’re up to 25 people. This afternoon/evening I’ll update the spreadsheet and write up some “analysis” for a post. Please be patient with me, I’m learning as I go.
January 12th, 2010 at 2:59 pm
@Monkey12, no I’m fine with the numbers
@Crosbie13, I am not telling anyone to shut up. My comment was in response to Monkey’s previous post, no.10, which demanded the outing of those who dared to voice an opinion in favour of something that the vast majority of us oppose. The thought that there might be such people lurking in our midst seemed to infuriate him.
January 12th, 2010 at 3:27 pm
Just to be clear, I never thought there was vote fraud, Billys comment to me:
“I’d just like to hear from 24 different people rather than the half dozen usual suspects”
implied that only six people voted, which would have meant six people voted multiple times. I figured there was a pretty good chance I misinterpreted that comment, which is why I asked him for clarification.
And yes, the idea someone supports a treaty like ACTA, which they can’t even READ due to the fact it is mired in secrecy does infuriate me. I really would like to hear why anyone who is not part of a huge corporation would support such a thing.
January 12th, 2010 at 3:29 pm
Billy [15], I don’t think Monkey demanded anyone’s ‘outing’, he was encouraging them to post comments explaining their support for ACTA (which can be done pseudonymously).
ACTA is certainly controversial and it is not surprising that the conflation of counterfeiting (deceit) with copying (infringement of an unethical monopoly) is enough to infuriate many, and that is just one of many other infuriating aspects of ACTA.
Those in support of copyright as well as those against it should feel encouraged to participate in discussion on a2f2a. However, one should not necessarily expect participants to reach a single consensus. For that matter, I’m skeptical that to reach any kind of agreement is a good mission for a2f2a. It may be best to be more pragmatic and simply explore all the practical ways in which artists and fans can relate and deal with each other directly. If at some glorious day in the future a world Internet tax is legislated, or ACTA achieves a global agreement to implement a graduated response, then all the better (for those who hope for it), but until that point we might at least TRY doing something that works in the near future rather than just squabble over what’s best in the distant future.
January 12th, 2010 at 4:26 pm
” My comment was in response to Monkey’s previous post, no.10, which demanded the outing of those who dared to voice an opinion in favour of something that the vast majority of us oppose. ”
Really ?
This .. from monkey
” I would like to hear from the from the four people why a trade agreement that only reps from giant corporations are allowed to see should NOT be condemned. ”
Doesn’t sound like a ‘outing’ but is a reasonable question .. considering that anyone here can choose to be anonymous when posting. I also would like to hear why someone would think that secret negotiations with corporations is ‘A ‘Ok’.
Why DO you think ACTA is ok ?
January 12th, 2010 at 5:33 pm
Thanks Crosbie, you hit the nail right on the head regarding my post; I wasn’t asking for anyone’s real name or address.
January 12th, 2010 at 6:56 pm
The reason that we need to build consensus is that without it, we will be unable to engage in the debate currently going on in the record industry.
When I first contemplated setting up this site with Jon, I was warned off by everyone that I respected among my colleagues. You will never be able to find a consensus with those guys they told me. Despite that, I thought that there were the makings of a compromise between P2Pnet and FAC. After all, we have something that you want – our position on three strikes.
I believed that if I could get you guys to support our argument that the law of copyright should be changed to exclude people who share files for no gain – as implied in the FAC slogan ‘Where Money Is Made, Artists Must Be Paid’- then I would be able to go back to my fellow artists and say that file-sharers are not demons, we can make common cause with them.
The FAC weren’t able to carry the room in favour of no sanctions for file-sharers at the Air meeting because most artists are afraid that file-sharing will mean the end of their careers. They don’t accept the FAC argument that file-sharing is a form of promotion, which if harnessed by artists could benefit their careers rather than hinder them. And until we can convince the majority of artists of this fact, then the majors will continue to be able to persecute you in our name.
In order to begin to challenge this situation by making our fellow artists question what they are being told about file-sharing by the majors, we first need to convince artists that you guys are not determined to strip them of their right to decide who does and who does not get to use their music for free.
That is why a compromise in which the FAC agree to change their position on three strikes in exchange for you guys changing your position on copyright would be ground-breaking. It would show the majors that artists and file-sharers are allies not enemies, that we will support each other in the debates about ACTA and copyright, that together we will shape the new digital music industry.
However, we have not so far been able to reach a consensus that I can transmit back to my board to begin this process. I need to know if the majority of you think that it is worth trying to reach a consensus or if, like Crosbie, you think it a waste of time.
January 12th, 2010 at 7:12 pm
I get the impression that most everyone here would like to work towards a consensus (assuming that most of the people who have been active have also shared their opinions in this first poll). I wouldn’t worry about Crosbie, he’s already said “fuck consensus” in the other “It’s time to agree” thread.
January 12th, 2010 at 8:00 pm
It’s unfortunate that it didn’t make the final edit, but in a recent debate on Radio 4’s “You and Yours”, I used the line “Where Money Is Made, Artists Must Be Paid” when explaining the Pirate Party UK’s stance that copyright needs to be reformed rather than abolished.
January 12th, 2010 at 8:16 pm
@Billy
Digital filesharing went mainstream with napster in 1999. Dire predictions were made then, yet music is still here, concerts still sell out, and even the outdated cd still sells, if in less volume than previously. I suspect these artists get a LOT of fear-mongering from their labels.
Even if you got 100% to agree with you, only 25 people answered the pol questions, the artists could quite reasonably claim that is too small a number to accurately represent the millions of file sharers out there. Let’s say, for the sake of argument they did accept that, why do you need 100% agreement? Let me give two of the pol results as an example.
You can look at that negatively and say the glass is less than half full – less than 50% supported this idea. But looking at it as a representative no. it’s not bad at all. It means of you took two million file sharers, almost a million of them would support you! I’m sure there are far more than two million file sharers, so that no is actually much larger.
I think this no. speaks for itself, it’s not 100% but it’s a very clear majority.
I think I’ve done a pretty good job showing you don’t need 100% consensus to start working on copyright reform, if you accept the numbers from the pol as being representative of filesharers you already have huge numbers of people who would support you.
I’d like to make one last point, you may not agree with it, but I’d ask you to at least think about it. That is, that even if 0% (and such is NOT the case) of the p2p crowd supported copyright reform and they all wanted to abolish it aka Crosbie, three strikes is a complete loser for artists. It will not only fail completely in it’s purpose to curb file sharing, it will bring a huge backlash against the artists who will be seen to have supported it and pushed it through. I think that if it gets pushed through, especially via a sleazeball treaty like ACTA which even the artists it supposedly benefits aren’t allowed to read artists will not only not make a dime more, they will lose money, bigtime.
January 12th, 2010 at 10:14 pm
” That is why a compromise in which the FAC agree to change their position on three strikes in exchange for you guys changing your position on copyright would be ground-breaking. ”
Huh ?
You guys ?
Crosbie and maybe Fred seem to be the only hardcore copyright abolishonists in the room. The majority seem to be in favor of reform rather than dissolution. What more exactly do you want ? No wonder it only took making Lily ’sad’ to make the FAC turn on the fans.
January 13th, 2010 at 4:40 am
Billy, liberty and upholding the principle of liberty is more important than you going back to your negotiating table proudly waving a major concession from file-sharers.
You’re barking up the wrong tree. a2f2a is not the head office of File-Sharers Inc. It is not able to represent the global population of people willing and able to share music and movies, whether by ethernet or sneakernet, whether for love or money. You are not in dialogue with the planet, only those similarly interested in the clash between the copyright based industries and the people’s cultural liberty.
There is no scope here for negotiation and getting people to agree to ‘reform’ their behaviour such that they always seek permission before copying, performing, or building upon anyone else’s published work. Suing people for singing copyright covered songs in supermarkets is just as bad as suing them for making copies for their friends, or selling CDs of themselves singing cover versions.
There is only scope for exploring ways in which artists and fans can do business without resorting to litigation the moment a fan or potential fan fails to ask a copyright holder permission for something or paying a compulsory license fee for it. We need to explore non-suing ways that can work in the near term, rather than ways that need to wait umpteen years for a tax to be legislated. Artists have got to abandon the anachronistic permission culture that copyright appeared to establish, and learn how to do business with customers who refuse to be bound by the 18th century shackles of copyright.
You can sit there petulant, refusing to engage in any discussion until all a2f2a participants agree to your terms and reach the ‘consensus’ you’re in pursuit of, or you can abandon that diplomatic folly and simply explore ways of doing business in the current environment in which, despite Indiana’s claims to the contrary, copyright is not particularly effective or highly regarded.
a2f2a is about helping artists and fans find more humane, more conducive ways of doing business with each other, it’s not about raising Billy Bragg’s political standing in FAC and the record labels through his appearance of having a direct and influential line of communication with the governing body of all file-sharers.
Billy, the future of business in the arts is peer to peer, equal to equal, person to person, artist to fan, fan to artist. It is not multinational publishing corporation to national collection society to federation of privileged artists to governing body of all file-sharers. If you want to engage and negotiate with fans you do so directly, your own fans. If you want to stop your own fans singing your songs in a pub for money without a license, then you negotiate a concession with them via your website. Or better still, wake up, smell the coffee, and tell your fans that’s it’s ok, they no longer need your permission, you’ve set them free, but if they want you to write or sing any more you’re happy to accept their money in exchange.
January 13th, 2010 at 7:10 am
I am acutely aware that there are only 25 of us participating here and that almost all the comments come from half a dozen or so regular posters that include myself, but that does not mean that we cannot begin to build the alliance between artists and file-sharers that will be necessary if we hope to defeat ACTA and 3-strikes.
Do we want to actually engage in this process or just bitch about the unfairness of it all? In order to do that we need to not just find a consensus, but to be capable of taking that consensus and arguing in favour of it on P2Pnet and at the FAC. Now that consensus could never be 100% – we are seeking compromises here, so should not expect everyone to agree with everything. All it needs to be is a majority of us adopting a set of principles that unite us in our fight for a fair internet.
I think the survey gives us the mandate to construct a consensus. We now need to boil down those points that won the most support into a handful of principles that we can begin to propagate within our own communities.
So lets stop saying that there is a consensus and actually formalise those principles that we agree on.
January 13th, 2010 at 7:21 am
Good morning, Billy and everyone else:
The reason that we need to build consensus is that without it, we will be unable to engage in the debate currently going on in the record industry.
We — that’s ‘us guys’ — are already engaged in a debate, and have been since around 2003 when the labels’ RIAA first sued a 12-year-old girl for copyright infringement in your name, and in the name of artists everywhere. The RIAA has since December 2008 been largely sidelined in the wake of the 3 strikes debacle. But the BPI and IFPI are still at it. Meanwhile, as a direct result, millions of people around the world have stopped buying corporate product — your recordings — in a continuing, but wholly unacknowledged (by the lamescream press corpse), boycott. The victims aren’t the musicians. The victims are everyone who allows this to happen.
When I first contemplated setting up this site with Jon, I was warned off by everyone that I respected among my colleagues. You will never be able to find a consensus with those guys they told me. Despite that, I thought that there were the makings of a compromise between P2Pnet and FAC. After all, we have something that you want – our position on three strikes.
When I first contemplated setting up this site with you, Billy, the same thing happen to me, and is still happening. I’ve lost readers because of this dialogue we’re having. They believe I’ve gone over to the dark side. And the loss is serious because: these disaffected people talk loudly on other forums; and, there are fewer people to carry our mutual message forward.
I believed that if I could get you guys to support our argument that the law of copyright should be changed to exclude people who share files for no gain – as implied in the FAC slogan ‘Where Money Is Made, Artists Must Be Paid’- then I would be able to go back to my fellow artists and say that file-sharers are not demons, we can make common cause with them.
Frankly, sod the FAC. They’re only worried about themselves, not the people who keep them going. For
mostmany of them, their day has long been done anyway. If they want to be part of the solution instead of a major part of the problem manifested, for the moment, by the 3 strikes thing, I’d love to have them on board. So how about ‘For artists to sell, fans must be treated with respect and decency?’The FAC weren’t able to carry the room in favour of no sanctions for file-sharers at the Air meeting because most artists are afraid that file-sharing will mean the end of their careers. They don’t accept the FAC argument that file-sharing is a form of promotion, which if harnessed by artists could benefit their careers rather than hinder them. And until we can convince the majority of artists of this fact, then the majors will continue to be able to persecute you in our name.
What majors? As I say here http://a2f2a.com/2010/01/10/music-fan-manifesto-2010/ The future is with the thousands of artists who didn’t sign the petition, not with the ones who did. Read items 16, 17, 18 and 19.
In order to begin to challenge this situation by making our fellow artists question what they are being told about file-sharing by the majors, we first need to convince artists that you guys are not determined to strip them of their right to decide who does and who does not get to use their music for free.
No one wants to strip anyone of their rights and to suggest that’s the case is ridiculous. Item 25 in the MFM – The kids are alright and they’ll do right by artists, once the Big 4 are out of the way.
That is why a compromise in which the FAC agree to change their position on three strikes in exchange for you guys changing your position on copyright would be ground-breaking. It would show the majors that artists and file-sharers are allies not enemies, that we will support each other in the debates about ACTA and copyright, that together we will shape the new digital music industry.
We’re not allies. Artists depend on fans, not the other way around. Artists are producers, fans are customers, and the customer is always right. They — the FAC in particular — need to understand that. And the new digital music industry is already being shaped. The debate here is part of it and so far, the musicians are trailing in the dust.
However, we have not so far been able to reach a consensus that I can transmit back to my board to begin this process. I need to know if the majority of you think that it is worth trying to reach a consensus or if, like Crosbie, you think it a waste of time.
I started this at 3:30 am here on Vancouver Island and I soon have to get to work on p2pnet. So one last thing: there seems to be an air of deep frustration here. But I don’t feel that. In fact, I believe it’s a great beginning. I know exactly how Billy feels about peer pressure because I’m getting it too, and in spades. But it’s a process I’m delighted to be a part of.
This has never happened before and if the FAC maintain their totally untenable position, it won’t make any difference in the long run. You can’t turn back the clock. Even if the FAC stays on the side of the labels and government and the 3 strikes plan is implemented here and elsewhere, it won’t matter. It’s too late. The people, the Great Unwashed, now have power and a voice. And they’re rapidly learning how to use both.
But back to this concensus, let’s follow up on David L’s initiative, Let’s run another poll, this time involving a lot more people, and not only the ones here on a2f2a. We’ll need an updated list of questions and I think between them, Crosbie and Indy made a good start. I’ll run it, and pay for it, on p2pnet. If you-all agree, let’s set a kick-off target for next Monday, January 25.
Sorry if this is a bit hurried.
Cheers! And my best to you all …
January 13th, 2010 at 8:59 am
@Jon I believe what Billy means is that if there was an consensus here from the p2p community as an ‘organisation’, it would give him a stronger foothold with the FAC in order to perhaps change their current, potentially aligning the two organisations. If he does that, he may have some leverage with the media and be in a better position to lobby for a change in direction.
January 13th, 2010 at 9:53 am
@ Indy:
I fully understand where Billy is coming from, but for myself, I’ve had enough of deferring to FAC. I think we fans (customers) have a lot more leverage than may be supposed and it’s time we saw some signs the FAC board is willing to talk reasonably to us as reasonable people, rather than us having to go cap-in-hand to them.
Do they or don’t they support the 3 strikes move? If they say, plainly and clearly, they don’t agree with it, the log-jam will be immediately removed and all kinds of doors will suddenly open. If they want to stay where they are, they should say so, and right now, in which case we need to drive around them.
This is the beginning of things, not the end, with or without the FAC.
Cheers!
January 13th, 2010 at 11:38 am
@Jon
I’ll reiterate the last point I made on my previous post here. Regarding three strikes, the position of the p2p crowd shouldn’t matter to FAC, as three strikes is a loser for them. They have nothing at all to gain from it, and a LOT to lose being seen supporting it. At this point I don’t really trust FAC anyway, I mean they were against three strikes, then Lily Allen takes some flack and suddenly they all support it. Lets say they change their mind again and oppose three strikes; if some other artist who comes out in favour of three strikes gets a lot of shit for it, are they going to reverse themselves yet again? You can say what you want about the p2p crowed here, but at least our opinions have been consistent.
January 13th, 2010 at 11:55 am
” I fully understand where Billy is coming from, but for myself, I’ve had enough of deferring to FAC. I think we fans (customers) have a lot more leverage than may be supposed and it’s time we saw some signs the FAC board is willing to talk reasonably to us as reasonable people, rather than us having to go cap-in-hand to them. ”
OMG .. this.
The FAC and the Labels, with all of their money, lawyers, government officials and bluster are ultimately NOT the ones with any real control anymore. They KNOW it. That’s why they yell so loudly to the walls that they DO have power, and will use it to harm regular people. They are afraid. Afraid of us. WE choose when and where and on whom to spend out money. We now have ways of ensuring that we don’t WASTE our cash on crap.
They can’t stand that.
The FAC has no power, the regular joe behind his PC does. It’s ‘us guys’ the FAC has to convince. They need to convince us that they don’t endorse bankrupting little billy’s dad over a few songs. If they don’t, we stop buying their stuff.
Pass three strikes and watch the birth of anonymous surfing for the AVERAGE joe, not just the brain trust.
From Crosbie ..
” a2f2a is about helping artists and fans find more humane, more conducive ways of doing business with each other, it’s not about raising Billy Bragg’s political standing in FAC and the record labels through his appearance of having a direct and influential line of communication with the governing body of all file-sharers. ”
Every alternate way of doing business has been slapped away, even the ones that are proven to work. Ask Wil Wheaton, he’s doing pretty well with self publishing, creative commons, and 1000 true fans. Clark seems to get it, why can’t the FAC ?
BTW, Crosbie,
As heartily as I disagree with you about total dissolution of copyright ( at this time ), that was the best summation of what’s happening here I have yet to see.
It’s not ‘us guys’.
January 13th, 2010 at 12:38 pm
@ Dredd: “Pass three strikes and watch the birth of anonymous surfing for the AVERAGE joe, not just the brain trust.”
It’s there already. And as has been noted repeatedly, the labels (and supporting artists) are the authors of their own problems, which they perpetuate. When one downloader is sued, 10 more learn about it almost instantaneously, and every time they stomp one indexing site, two more spring up ( http://www.p2pnet.net/story/33832 ). Indexers could, and should, be referral sites. Fans could, and should, be customers. Do the math.
Cheers!
January 13th, 2010 at 1:37 pm
So the consensus here is that you guys don’t need to do anything because its already happening and you’ve won and the labels have lost.
January 13th, 2010 at 1:56 pm
Today it’s just file-sharing. Tomorrow, when independent artists start selling their music direct to their fans AND infringe copyright in the process (because they mixed in a copyright covered recording, or used copyright covered lyrics, or used a copyright covered tune – and didn’t ask permission or pay a license fee), then you’ll see the claws come out and the fur fly.
Indie artists actually earning money directly from their fans vs labels and collection societies sending the heavies round to collect their protection money. That’s when things will get fractious. Artists and fans earning money without needing copyright, and the copyright cartel left out in the cold wanting a piece of the action.
Today it’s fans being sued. Tomorrow it’s independent artists.
We’re talking to the wrong artists. We’re talking to the artists who want to sue anyone who uses their published work without permission (or at least if they make any money from doing so). Why aren’t we talking to the artists who DON’T WANT TO SUE OR BE SUED? Where are the likes of Kutiman and Rednex?
January 13th, 2010 at 2:04 pm
@ Billy. That’s glib and unworthy of you, Billy. You know we’re not saying that.
Cheers!
January 13th, 2010 at 5:44 pm
” Where are the likes of Kutiman and Rednex? ”
They may not be here simply because they are already trying some of things that have been bandied about here, and thus aren’t too worried. They’re on the right track and don’t really have a ‘horse in this race’ so to speak.
I hope more artists like them ( and clark ) chime in with some real experience using the net and P2P to their advantage. Only when some artists like them visit and tell tales of success will any of this be taken in any other way than BB terse little comment above. Those that are stuck in the system have to believe that we are against them, and success isn’t possible in order to justify what is being done to fans.
The FAC needs us to be the ‘Bad Guys’ in order to be able to look in the mirror after the next mom has to pay a couple of mil for a couple of downloaded songs.
January 13th, 2010 at 6:36 pm
@crosbie @jon I don’t believe that any artist here wants to sue anyone. I’ve not sued anyone in my lifetime. Here, I believe you’ve taken the thread completely out of context. In a way, however, what Billy has assessed does kind of sound like the general flavour of what’s being said.
If a group of us decide that “there’s no point because we have total control and so, who cares really” it means that the whole point of the discussions that we have been having has been in vain. Although there are a lot of varying opinions here, we do have a lot that we seem to agree about (based upon the poll). I can’t speak for Billy, but, it doesn’t sound to me like he wants people to be sued. Nor do I, so, Crosbie’s interpretations are a far cry from what the motivation here is as far as I can see. If Billy wanted fans to be sued, he wouldn’t be trying so hard to get feedback from you lot! That’s for sure. He could just maintain the FAC’s position and be done with it in that case.
Clearly, we all need to recognise that Billy is admirably working to find out what people would like to see happen. He has a group of artists in the FAC that he can reach out to. (and forgive me Billy if I’m wrong about this, but, I believe that you would like to see the two sides come together on some concrete issues. From what I can see, Billy would like to re-approach the FAC with some of the ideas, concerns and factual information and ask them to make some concessions publically. In order for him to do that, it would be more persuasive for a2f2a to come up with a consensus. It’s not an issue of p2p advocates coming to the FAC “cap in hand”. You have someone here who is willing to act as a mediator and who is taking time out to discuss things in order to help faciliate a compromise for everyone.
Here’s the deal. If this group here really would like to see change and also provide the means for a fair deal for the creative community, why not at least work towards some form of consensus and negotiate? Seeing how 15 thousands creative people have signed up to support copyright in a petition to lobby, it may make sense for us to work towards the issues of copyright reform, 3-strikes and perhaps alternatives that help to protect creativity within our culture (cultures) and work with one another. We will have to lay down the extremes and come to some middle ground in order to do that. I fear that otherwise, we may have a ‘virtual’ version of riots and cops with batons and guns bashing the crowds down into submission. It’s not what anybody wants.
January 13th, 2010 at 6:45 pm
What she said.
January 13th, 2010 at 7:10 pm
Hmmm. I think we must be working at cross purposes. I’m here to help artists and fans understand why copyright has resulted in essentially innocent people being sued for millions, why copyright is fundamentally unethical, and how art can be exchanged for money without copyright.
And Billy and Indiana seem to be under the impression that a2f2a is where file-sharers will negotiate a compromise, where file-sharers are begging FAC to do something, anything, but please stop the labels suing us! Hey, I know, perhaps we can reach a consensus such that people only get sued if they actually make any money in the act of infringing copyright?
But, as Dreddsnik is beginning to persuade me, the old guard are set in their ways, looking to bolster their pensions with larger royalties, and the young blood are already convinced, already dealing direct with their fans and too busy making money to argue that it can be done without copyright, without royalties, without suing anyone.
January 13th, 2010 at 7:55 pm
I think you’ll find that I echo that position, as do the millions of people who will continue their current behavior regardless of what kinds of laws are put in place. Why not accept this new baseline and find ways to work with it?
January 13th, 2010 at 8:23 pm
This isn’t a negotiation. I joined this community to, like Crosbie, help artists confused and overwhelmed by the transformative change that has occurred in the past decade develop innovative ways of selling to their fans through both primary and secondary markets.
People like Kutiman, Amanda Palmer, and Clark Sorley don’t need a2f2a. Why? Because they’re already making money just fun, thank you very much, directly from the people who enjoy their work. I was hoping that a2f2a would be the place to help more artists join that ever-growing group, yet I’ve been faced with the regurgitated, vacuous talking points I’ve been debunking literally for years.
There is no consensus, negotiation, or dealing. There is only the current marketplace, and people who have a choice between succeeding in it, and struggling against it until they fade into obscurity.
January 13th, 2010 at 10:02 pm
” I think you’ll find that I echo that position, as do the millions of people who will continue their current behavior regardless of what kinds of laws are put in place. ”
I stand corrected, thanks Steel.
IMO, and I’ve said it in other threads, it’s just too much to ask too soon. It’s an option that won’t even be considered until the day comes when more artists making a decent living outside label constraints than inside the slave pen. At that point, certain aspects of copyright ( maybe all ) will be obviously moot. Until then there will be too much resistance from those locked into the current corrupt system.
” This isn’t a negotiation. I joined this community to, like Crosbie, help artists confused and overwhelmed by the transformative change that has occurred in the past decade develop innovative ways of selling to their fans through both primary and secondary markets. ”
This is what I also hoped to see. I even pointed out an example being successfully used for self publishing books.
It was ignored.
Instead, it appears that we need to ‘prove’ to the FAC that we’re not crooks and thieves. A daunting task when minds are already made up.
January 14th, 2010 at 4:08 am
Steelwolf, it may be that preventing a2f2a get anywhere near demonstrating how artists and fans can do business without copyright, record labels, collection societies, and lawyers, is precisely the objective. Powerful forces are no doubt rather worried about anything that could render them obsolete, as are old guard artists worried about preserving their royalty streams.
It would be rather ironic if instead of showing new artists how to make money by selling their work to their fans through file-sharing networks, a2f2a ended up trying to persuade this new generation of artists and fans that if they make any money where copyright covers their work they will be disconnected from the Internet – unless they have prior permission from all copyright holders (and/or pay respective license fees).
“Where money is made, copyright holders must be paid” is not a motto I will be endorsing. I’d prefer something like this: “Where artists make money by dealing directly with their fans, copyright is redundant”.
January 14th, 2010 at 10:29 am
Crobsie, Dredd, Steely (where’s Monkey today? Is it his day off?)
I think I see now why we’re not making any progress. You thought that you we going to set us all free from the slavery of copyright? Shit. I didn’t realise that you already had all the answers before we started the debate.
The trouble with all of you guys is that you think that just because you can download media files for free that the game is up and you’ll be welcomed as liberators.
The truth is, the game isn’t up and the outcome is far from certain. The industry will never be able to charge everyone for content again, but that doesn’t mean they will simply throw in the towel and hand over the keys to the kingdom.
A much more likely outcome is that they will simply make a tactical withdrawl from this internet that we currently enjoy by creating a firewall behind which you can only do business if you accept their spyware into your computer – which the government will recommend you do to ‘protect’ your transactions. They will welcome everyone into their netmall while portraying those who refuse to accept this government approved spyware as being suspect. You guys will finally get your copyright free zone, but this ‘pirate’ net will be jammed, demonised and persecuted.
Of course, you will still be able to share files through other anonymous media, but you won’t be able to pay your utility bills on the darknet.
I am here because I want to do what I can to stop this happening and I believe that the best way to do that is to forge an alliance between artists and consumers to defend net neutrality, which benefits both of us. In order to do that, we need to find some common ground.
All you need to prove is that you are willing to compromise. I am willing to go and argue for the FAC to drop their support for 3 strikes and support the right of individuals to share files for no profit.
What are you willing to offer in return?
January 14th, 2010 at 12:11 pm
@steelwolf, crosbie, etc. Jon has posted a number of threads about the FAC in hope that they would change their 180 degree Air Statement decision. Now, Billy is trying to put together a workable approach. The issue surrounds the FACs support of 3-strikes. All Billy is asking for is a simple trade-off. You can continue ‘helping’ artists understand whatever models or approaches you are presenting. That is completely mutually exclusive of this legislation which will a) waste money b) not help artists c) not disappear unless there is a lobby and a unified effort to stop it. This kind of effort does and will require negotiation. This thread in particular is about our first attempt to find out what issues the majority of us agree upon. Maybe we could focus a bit on that part of the ‘universe’ for the purpose of threads titled ‘Let’s agree’ or ‘consensus’ and it might help us move things along?
January 14th, 2010 at 12:20 pm
Here is a link to the Bill: http://services.parliament.uk/bills/2009-10/digitaleconomy/documents.html for anyone who hasn’t already done a read-thru. The bill gives an awful lot of ‘control’ over to government. It goes to committee stage soon.
January 14th, 2010 at 12:26 pm
You missed me? I’m touched.
I haven’t said much, as I got no response to my post #23, in which I tried to point out that 45.8% in favour of poll question 4(about reforming copyright) is NOT a bad thing! Did you disagree with my point?
My last point, which I KNOW you disagree with, is that FAC and you should not be using three strikes as a negotiating point, as it will wind up hurting YOU and FAC far more than us if passed. You seem to hold it up as some kind of club over our heads, but I’m telling you all that does is put peoples backs up and make them LESS amenable to copyright reform or compromise. You got 45.8%, are you saying you can’t work with those people, that it has to be closer to 100% or it’s three strikes?
January 14th, 2010 at 12:27 pm
Billy, are you suggesting that folk such as I do the equivalent of agreeing that slavery should be legalised if you agree that there should be no tax on cotton? Is that the sort of compromise on principles you’re looking for?
It wouldn’t get you anywhere anyway.
Understanding why your fans should be at liberty to share your published music, or artists among them should be at liberty to be paid to play, remix or sing it (without any respect to copyright holders), is not a bargaining position. It’s something that artists need to understand if they’re to have a harmonious relationship with their fans instead of a litigious one. You can’t expect your fans to enthusiastically pay you for your art if you insist on being able to sue them the moment their fans pay them for theirs (if it infringes your copyright).
As a comparator, the free software industry isn’t a non-commercial one. It doesn’t permit copying of software ONLY as long as whoever copies or uses a copy doesn’t profit from doing so.
Presenting the principle of liberty, artistic freedom, not needing permission to share and build upon mankind’s culture, is to present a more humane basis for artists who want to do business directly with their fans, as equals – peer-to-peer.
It’s not presented as “Artists cannot do business until the world is changed, until file-sharers finally persuade the labels, collection societies, lawyers and featured artists to accept the new world order”. Don’t be silly. We’re not here to change the world through fomenting a political movement, to persuade FAC to submit to our terms. We’re here to invite everyone INTERESTED in how artists and fans can do business directly with each other to exchange ideas, techniques, experiences, anything to shed light on what works, might work, and doesn’t work.
Why don’t you simply give up your diplomatic mission to negotiate a settlement with the file-sharing enemy (who aren’t represented here), and be pragmatic?
Chill out.
Accept reality. Ignore the dinosaurs thrashing about. Focus on the nimble mammals already adapting to the end of control. The dinosaurs are history. The mammals are the future. Goodbye publishing corporation producing content for consumer cash cows. Hello artist and fanbase making beautiful music together.
Perhaps you can simply stick to your steadfast belief in copyright and your entitlement to royalties, not get too offended by those who don’t share your belief, and just play along for a while eh?
You never know, you might then have a chance of recognising that artists can make far more money when people can freely play, share, and sing their music and songs, than they can if they slap a big radiation hazard sticker ‘(c)’ all over their work.
No-one has to be baptised, converted, or pledge an oath. Agreement with any philosophical, ethical, legal, or economic framework is optional. Consensus is a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow. We already have everything we need: artists, fans, a way of talking to each other, and a way of exchanging art for money. All that’s left is the instruction manual – because it’s been three centuries since artists and fans last tried doing business with each other directly, and we’ve only recently resumed doing so. Let’s learn, experiment, make notes, and become a centre of expertise for artists and fans who want to know how to cut out the middleman and deal direct.
January 14th, 2010 at 12:36 pm
Hi Billy: It’s good to see you posting again.
“You guys will finally get your copyright free zone, but this ‘pirate’ net will be jammed, demonised and persecuted.”
The zone has existed for some time, and it is indeed being demonised and persecuted. But it isn’t being jammed, and it never will be. It’s behind its own wall.
IMO, the barricade you’re talking about will do little more than further cut the cartels off from the rest of the online world, which won’t be a bad thing.
A certain number of ‘consumers’ will continue to consume formulaic ‘product’ at exorbitant prices behind the corporate curtain, but they’ll be part of a shrinking minority. And while they consume, the already vast, and steadily growing, base of brand new customers created as a direct result of the sue ‘em all campaign will be happily enjoying their free will, buying what they want from whomever want.
The labels won’t be making tactical withdrawl. They’ll be desperately hanging on to whatever they can retain behind their barricades.
“Of course, you will still be able to share files through other anonymous media, but you won’t be able to pay your utility bills on the darknet.”
Does this mean you believe anyone and everyone who shares will somehow be magically cut off en masse from the corporate-controlled net? Or will that apply only to the ‘criminals’ singled out under the 3 strikes legislation supported by the FAC? And do you really believe utility companies will universally and unanimously support the entertainment cartel ‘initiatives’?
“All you need to prove is that you are willing to compromise. I am willing to go and argue for the FAC to drop their support for 3 strikes and support the right of individuals to share files for no profit.”
That’s what it’s all about, Billy, with or without the FAC. It’s what it’s always been about — that, and making sure artists have a way to interact directly with the people who love their music.
But having said all of the above, I know your post was made in good faith. So what form would the compromise you’re asking for take?
Cheers!
January 14th, 2010 at 12:39 pm
Well, we’ve got something that you want – our position on 3 strikes and you’ve got something we want – your position on copyright.
January 14th, 2010 at 12:55 pm
Billy, the FAC should do what they think is right. Having participated in discussions here, you are now informed of various views and can advise FAC in light of them.
You do not need anyone on a2f2a to agree to anything, let alone commit apostasy by recanting on their principles in order to pleasure you with the consensus you demand (as if payment for representation).
You must take responsibility for the advice you give FAC. a2f2a has not provided you with any democratic mandate, but INSIGHT – if you can withstand its heresy long enough to relay it.
January 14th, 2010 at 1:01 pm
@ Billy: For myself, I’m happy to use Bennett’s paper as a starting point.
The last time I spoke with him, he was breaking it down, identifying points of relevance for individual interested parties, so to speak. We were going to run as a series here and on p2pnet and I don’t think anything has changed – certainly it hasn’t for my part of it.
So the compromise might be that some of us (fans and musicians both) have found a position paper we can use as a basis for talks.
Here’s the url – http://a2f2a.com/2009/12/11/%E2%80%98the-music-industry-is-in-free-fall%E2%80%99/
I emphasise this is just my own suggestion. I have no idea who, if anyone, will agree with it.
Cheers!
January 14th, 2010 at 1:16 pm
You are allergic to bee stings and you have a wasps nest which you are going smash on the ground if agreement can’t be reached. Great idea.
January 14th, 2010 at 2:48 pm
Still sounds like some kind of “bargain”.
And a 1-sided bargain at that.
What it amounts to is nothing more than “if consumers would just support the idea that copyright can be ‘fixed’, the FAC *might* agree to campaign against 3-Strikes-style legislation.”
I say “might”, because there’s certainly every indication that you have no consensus from your peers on that one. At best, they’re “waiting in the wings” for us to throw them a bone, and then they’ll think about it.
This is not a negotiation. Neither “side” actually has anything to “offer” the other. Each “bargain chip” you’re talking about is based on a false premise. Allow me to clarify what I mean, and why that is…
“3 Strikes” is direct product of copyright. As long as “rights” are attached to music, there will always be “IP holders”. As long as there are “IP holders”, they will continue to insist on controlling “distribution”, thus still criminalizing a variety of activities involving “their product”.
Therefore, if people want to reject a 3-strikes-style proposal, it would be illogical to agree (even “in principle”) to a plea to “change copyright”, just to get their collective “foot in the door”, as any “rights-based” scheme would continue to beg for corporate interference on various fronts, and “3 Strikes” would continue to be pushed for.
All such an effort would do is “justify” the present thinking.
You (and the FAC) will not be able to “change” anything about copyright or its consequences by “debating” with the very ones who profit from it all, and/or legally own the rights, and/or control your present livelihoods.
They’ll be asking YOU what you have to offer them in return, because that’s the position they’re in. What could possibly be your answer to that? (I’d be delighted if you put me in my place with a good answer to that!)
“Changing” copyright? Seems like a stretch to me. Even if you got a “new version”, it wouldn’t change anything significant. The only thing you can really do on that front that seems workable is AVOID it in the future. Doing THAT would certainly be much more “user-friendly” to the consumers and the Internet itself.
As for what’s already copyrighted, I have no easy answers for you.
The FAC’s current “position” on “3 Strikes” is one of SUPPORT, anyway. That’s their chosen stance, and the one they have allowed to be published. So we don’t even “have” that, do we? (Don’t all FAC members speak up at once to correct me, now!)
So, not only is your “position” a red herring in the first place, but you’re asking us to offer you another red herring as a “condition” for your position to ever change. As if one is destined to be the consequence of not having the other.
Listen, if we have to “bargain” with anyone to speak up against “3 Strikes”, there’s something wrong with that in the first place. If artists really want it, then I say, “Go for it! Don’t let us stop you!”
What we actually want is simply a way to support the artists whose music we want to purchase, that doesn’t further the cause of the corporate interference we’re already actively at war against.
You “have” the music we want to listen to.
We “have” the money you want us to pay you.
(That’s all it should say.)
January 14th, 2010 at 3:08 pm
@DA: You’re correct but, notwithstanding, I’d like to see us talking with, instead of at, each other and if that means putting various points to one side to be able to do so, I’m all for it.
I’m not thinking of the auld grey heads over at the FAC. I’m thinking of all the folks who didn’t vote for the 3 strikes farce, plus all the other fans and musicians on all sides of the various fences who are watching this.
If we can talk with each other constructively, and be seen to be doing so, it’d be huge in changing perceptions.
Cheers!
PS I just had an email from someone who should know better saying I’m ‘chickening out’.
No way. Tons of times in my life I’ve thought I’d it with someone or something only to find that pressing on not only got things sorted, it got them sorted for the better, and that’s what I’m hoping for now. If that doesn’t happen, what’s been lost?
January 14th, 2010 at 3:41 pm
@Jon52 I agree with that idea.
@DA, I don’t think that it’s necessarily meant to be an exact ‘trade-off’… I believe that what Billy is trying to do is go to the FAC and say, “look guys, we may have made a mistake with our position on 3-strikes. Here’s why and by the way, it turns out that the p2p community also believe that there should be some reform on copyright, here are some ideas. Oh, and what do you think about some of the proposals that have been made in this Lincoff paper. These were the results of the poll, etc.” If it looks like a2f2a is kind of ‘together’ and agreeing on some issues, it simply makes the process a bit easier.
As far as what ‘trade-offs’ the labels ask of artists, well, we’ve seen that for several years now. 360 deals. They promote artist and artist in turn shares a cut with them on all revenue streams. But, you know, that’s the obvious one.
January 14th, 2010 at 4:30 pm
“What are you willing to offer in return?”
Billy, we’re just individuals. We don’t have any organization or negotiating power. I can only speak for myself.
Here’s what I personally can offer you (or any artist):
I am willing to pay you to listen to your music. In person or on recording (coming to Honolulu any time soon?). But I want to pay YOU, not some faceless corporation that wants to sue me. And I want it to be easy to pay you, and easy to find exactly what music I want in the format I want.”
I am willing to pay a small ‘license fee’ or ‘internet tax’ if it means I can download music without threat of a lawsuit. But again, I want that money to go to YOU. ”
If I like your music well enough, I am willing to promote you for free. I will get my friends to come with me to your concert, buy them your music, and tell people about it.”
I am willing to buy other stuff you make. T-shirts, macaroni necklaces, whatever – as long as the money goes to you and it supports more music.”
I am willing to try other music you suggest. But I’m not willing to pay for it without hearing it first. I am willing to pay when you collaborate with that artist, though, especially if it’s Wilco
“What more do you want from me?”
January 14th, 2010 at 7:11 pm
What do I want from you?
I want you P2P people to organise so that you can engage in the debate about the new digital music industry.
I want you to represent yourselves instead at the table instead so that we can talk to you instead of talking about you.
I want you to bring your technical know-how to the aid of artists who are struggling to free themselves from the dead hand of the record industry.
I want you to be free to share files without being hunted down by the majors.
I want you to help me to convince my fellow artists that three strikes is a mistake.
Let no one be in any doubt that, even if we are able to find a consensus here, we would still have to win over our own communities. That would be a long hard slog. But we can’t take the all important first step on that journey until we can agree on a platform that involves compromise from both sides.
Now I have offered to do my best to convince the FAC to drop their support for three strikes. If that is not worth anything to you then I guess all we have here is a talking shop.
January 14th, 2010 at 7:33 pm
@Indiana:
That should already be a “topic for discussion” at the FAC! With, or without our input. Either they genuinely support 3 Strikes or they genuinely denounce it – no “political” games should be attached to it.
To clarify, I don’t need any explanation of the benefits of “documented consensus” or the polls used to collect such data. That’s all fine and constructive.
What I object to is the constant inference to a “position” held by the FAC on 3 Strikes being used as some sort of “bargaining chip” it can’t possibly be.
We’re being told, the FAC will *consider* campaigning against 3 Strikes IF AND ONLY IF everyone else agrees that “copyright changes” will be supported “in principle”. And, let us not forget that all these “new copyright” proposals we’re hearing mostly contain some type of usage fees or another designed to “compensate” copyright for its own failure, and require and encourage all sorts of unwanted corporate interference in order to be implimented.
We’ve been saying all along, we’re not here to “negotiate” with artists on such things, as they’re all counter-productive to the very health of the Internet, and threaten a number of human rights that fall well outside of the realm of “music” and “legal rights entitlement”. These are a few things that none of the people pushing for “trade-offs” seem to even consider.
It doesn’t seem to be about “consensus” as much as it seems to be about *concession* to the ideas that the labels and the FAC want us to submit to.
The message I’m getting is, “Fuck the Free Internet! Let them corporatize the whole damned thing so we can get paid better! So what if it takes more money and cooperation from everyone connected than reasonable?!”
We’ve been fighting the same shit from marketers and other corporate interests longer than you’ve been online, and we’re not about to throw that away just for “music” – the principle is far more important and reaching than that.
January 14th, 2010 at 7:41 pm
@Billy (#59):
Do you realize how much sense that last comment made, versus all the rest of your comments made in the last few weeks?!
So, you admit you don’t have “FAC support” at the moment for any campaign against 3-strikes-style legislation. And you affirm some other things that needed affirming.
Let’s start with a few things at a time…
How do you propose the user community could “represent itself”, and to whom? And, why would they even agree to hear “us”?
January 14th, 2010 at 8:42 pm
Earlier, to get things unstuck, I said I’d be OK with Bennett Lincoff’s paper.
I’ve made a simple questionairre to see how many others agree with that.
It’s here http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/P9YGZ3N
You can add your name in the comment box — if you want to
Cheers!
January 15th, 2010 at 5:55 am
DevilsAdvocate [60],
Despite a2f2a comprising 24 interested people, half of whom are on Billy’s side, Billy is apparently desperate to portray himself as in negotiations with the governing body of all file-sharers. In order to do this he also has to be seen to win a concession from them to take back to FAC, which in turn requires some semblance from a2f2a that such a concord has been reached.
What Billy fails to appreciate is that there is no such governing body. File-sharers are simply billions of individuals risking the enjoyment of their natural, cultural liberty despite the potential for prosecution by copyright cartels for doing so.
The only file-sharers Billy can negotiate with, like ANY artist, are those individuals within his audience, i.e. those listening to what he’s saying or singing. He can say to them “I don’t mind if you copy my work, but please fill in my online memorandum of understanding agreeing to be sued if you profit from using my work without my permission”, but there is no scope for a2f2a agreeing to such a thing on behalf of all file-sharers everywhere.
a2f2a is certainly a talking shop, but it doesn’t have to comprise only people who all fundamentally agree on principle in order to start arriving at practical techniques and approaches for artists and fans to deal directly. Just as atheists, Catholics, Jews, Buddhists and Muslims can all provide practical advice and help in the event of a natural disaster without having to first agree on whether there is or isn’t a god, and whether or not a god would have allowed it to happen, etc.
The Pirate Party on the other hand is in pursuit of a democratic mandate and so can poll their existing members to see if they wish to change their manifesto to support the enactment of an Internet tax – on the basis that that it would obtain more support from the populace than an untaxed Internet. If Billy would like to be seen to be negotiating with an organisation that is qualified to negotiate then it would be more appropriate to approach PPUK, and then possibly the international umbrella organisation.
A dozen guys interested in the phenomenon of file-sharing and developing practical business models (irrespective of whether they are in support of legislative change or the introduction of taxation) can’t exactly homogenise their disparate viewpoints to pretend a consensus that through Billy’s induction represents a concession from all file-sharers.
January 15th, 2010 at 11:58 am
@Crosbie That’s true, PPUK would be a good place for a poll actually.
@John Barron, what would you think about putting something like that together just to see what people think? Jon Newton has put up a poll about using Lincoff’s proposal as a starting block?
January 15th, 2010 at 4:53 pm
” What Billy fails to appreciate is that there is no such governing body. File-sharers are simply billions of individuals risking the enjoyment of their natural, cultural liberty despite the potential for prosecution by copyright cartels for doing so.”
Thanks Crosbie, well put.
This is why, the last time Billy asked what I was willing to ‘give’ for the FAC to change it’s stance I answered with such things as ‘A picture of my cat’, ‘My sister-in-law’, and other such stupid answers. I was really unable to express how silly it was to ask such a thing of me, or anyone else here, and why it was an unanswerable question.
Aspergers is hell
January 17th, 2010 at 10:46 am
Billy is under the illusion that his FAC’s position on 3-strikes is meaningful. It only exposes its members for the outdated, willfully ignorant fossils they are, while doing nothing, absolutely nothing, toward undoing a global change that occurred ten years ago. Three-strikes and similar bullshit laws are going to get a few single mothers of two, elderly nurses, and networked printers kicked offline, but that’s it. Congrats.
Sounds like the best way to keep the old guard in power is to just tax everybody to create an infinite “revenue stream” regardless of quality or technological change; Bennet Lincoff has done a great job mocking up just such a proposal. Why compete in a free market when you can literally get the government to hand you money?
January 22nd, 2010 at 4:11 pm
” Sounds like the best way to keep the old guard in power is to just tax everybody to create an infinite “revenue stream” regardless of quality or technological change; ”
You mean Kris Allen isn’t quality
?
/’Vote For The Worst’ Member for 4 years.
// Voted for Sanjaya