One of the major problems at the moment is – how do we move forward?
Billy: “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.”
Me: … 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. http://a2f2a.com/2009/12/11/%E2%80%98the-music-industry-is-in-free-fall%E2%80%99/
Indy said she’d be cool with that, but no one else responded.
So “to get things unstuck, I said I’d be OK with Bennett Lincoff’s paper,” I said in another post, going on, “I’ve made a simple questionairre [didn't know I spoke French, did you - heh] to see how many others agree with that.”
It’s here http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/P9YGZ3N.
It says >>>
I’m happy to use Bennett Lincoff’s paper as a starting point for a discussion on copyrights.
Agree / Disagree
You can add your name, or another suggestion, in the comment box — if you want 
(I’m running out of ideas … )
Cheers!
Jon
January 14th, 2010 at 11:47 pm
Here was the comment I posted in the comment box, and why.
I would be willing to accept it as a template, but NOT verbatim as it is now written.
Devil sums up the problem I have with it’s current incarnation in his reply on the Lincoff post page
So as written, this proposal STILL leaves the door open for legal action against non profit file sharers. From what I have been reading out of his posts, Billy doesn’t want to prosecute non profit file sharers. I think the provisions of this dealing with fees/punishments of non profit file sharing needs to be stricken, while leaving in place the provisions dealing with for profit organizations such as clearchannel.
January 15th, 2010 at 4:45 am
Compromise with who? A differentiation needs to be made between “IP owner” and “musician.” From everything I’ve seen so far, although FAC is made up of musicians, they are first and formost owners of IP. I joined a2f2a primarily with the understanding that the purpose was to seek alternate ways for musicians to earn a living in a world where free trade of music is a given. Compromise with IP holders amounts to nothing more than “give backs.” That’s something US unions have done for decades to the detriment of workers. Not all musicians are IP holders. Where do they fit into this “compromise?”
January 15th, 2010 at 5:12 am
Maybe there needs to be a preceding poll:
1) Everyone needs to compromise their principles in order to reach a consensus.
Agree
Disagree
2) No progress can occur until a consensus is reached.
Agree
Disagree
January 15th, 2010 at 7:00 am
@ Crosbie:
Some people choose to open the doors which are in front of them to see what’s on the other side. They know they can always close them again if they don’t like what they find. They know they don’t have to be locked into one point of view.
Others prefer to stay in one position, refusing to move no matter what.
Change, not rigidity, is what it’s all about. And in my view, there’s nothing wrong with compromise, every now and then. It doesn’t commit me to anything, unless I want it to.
At this point, 6 people have responded, and 4 of them are OK with using Bennett’s paper which, I reiterate, would be a basis for talks, not a position.
Cheers!
January 15th, 2010 at 7:41 am
Bill, you have my sympathies.
Jon, if you want to stipulate a policy at a2f2a that all participants must surrender whatever principles they started with, and agree to those implicit in Bennett’s proposition, then this necessarily ejects from a2f2a all those who don’t share Bennett’s principles and refuse to surrender their own – in the name of some meritless ‘consensus’ that Billy Bragg believes he needs if FAC is to give a2f2a their endorsement (and sponsorship).
Like Bill, I assumed a2f2a was to be about artists and fans dealing with each other directly and consensually ‘missing out the middleman’, not acting as a joint union of individual copyright holders and file-sharers seeking the implementation of a mutually agreeable tax (aka file-sharing license fee).
January 15th, 2010 at 8:27 am
@ Crosbie: I can’t stipulate anything, and I don’t want to. I can only say what I think.
Like you, I’m a member of a2f2a. Unlike you, I don’t claim my views are the only ones with validity. Nor do I try to put my words into other people’s mouths.
I respect your stance and largely agree with it. But that doesn’t mean I have to discount everything else.
Said Billy in a comment post http://a2f2a.com/2010/01/09/its-time-to-agree-the-survey/#comment-1698 “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.”
I said http://a2f2a.com/2010/01/09/its-time-to-agree-the-survey/#comment-1705 “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.”
In another comment, http://a2f2a.com/2010/01/09/its-time-to-agree-the-survey/#comment-1674 “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,” said Billy
I responded: “Frankly, sod the FAC. They’re only worried about themselves, not the people who keep them going. For most many 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 exchange went on:
Billy: 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.
Me: No one wants to strip anyone of their rights and to suggest that’s the case is ridiculous.
Billy: 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.
Me: 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.
Meanwhile, the labels, et al, must be well pleased.
They’re watching this site and it must be giving them great satisfaction to see us working against each other in this way.
Cheers!
January 15th, 2010 at 8:40 am
Jon, we should do what we believe is right.
To compromise that in order to appease the FAC, or to not be seen as ‘working against each other’ by the labels et al, seems… unprincipled.
I’d also suggest that a pack of wolves with a shared objective are able to pursue that objective as a pack of diverse individuals without having to submit themselves to ideological emasculation in order to appear like a well behaved flock of sheep, in continuous agreement with each other as to what direction to go in – simply in order to appease the farmer and take hints from his sheep dogs.
Is there a shy, rather quiet flock of sheep here that I haven’t as yet noticed? Are they waiting for the farmer to shoot the wolves before they’ll come out of hiding and start bleating in agreement?
January 15th, 2010 at 9:20 am
@ Crosbie:
“Jon, we should do what we believe is right.” I do.
“To compromise that in order to appease the FAC, or to not be seen as ‘working against each other’ by the labels et al, seems… unprincipled.”
No one, except you, has said anything about appeasement. And am I ‘unprincipled’? As far as I know, you’re the only one’s who’s made that suggestion.
Cheers!
January 15th, 2010 at 2:48 pm
Jon said above “One of the major problems at the moment is – how do we move forward?”
Where does this ‘fear’factor I’m hearing come from? What’s this “OMG, we would be ‘appeasing’ the FAC” or this “doing X would mean surrendering our principles” come from?
In order for us, as a group, to move forward, we are going to need to be a little more curious and a little less presumptuous. We are going to need to ‘try’.
January 15th, 2010 at 2:50 pm
@jon, my ‘9′ wasn’t directed at you at all (just so you know). I was just quoting you
January 15th, 2010 at 3:47 pm
@ Indy: Me and Goethe.
When did he join? heh
Cheers!
January 15th, 2010 at 4:37 pm
I can almost accept the Lincoff paper as a starting point for further discussion, the “showstopper” for me is the question raised in comment (1) on this thread (Monkey) and quoting DA, which was the main item I had trouble with as well. It’s a very significant element, and one where I can’t yet imagine a “compromise” that would make sense and still include that.
This proposal, submitted to the Canadian copyright consultation, makes much more sense to me as a statement of principle that would be more acceptable, while not going into such specific detail as the Lincoff proposals.
January 15th, 2010 at 4:59 pm
” Where does this ‘fear’factor I’m hearing come from? What’s this “OMG, we would be ‘appeasing’ the FAC” or this “doing X would mean surrendering our principles” come from? ”
Probably from the same place that ‘OMG filesharers are going to bankrupt the members of the FAC ‘ comes from.
January 15th, 2010 at 5:39 pm
he’s been reincarnated
lol
January 15th, 2010 at 6:39 pm
@ John Barron: To be able to move forward, I think we have to all agree something along these lines:
A) We propose that downloading for personal consumption is legal. (Get that out of the way.)
Then
B) We agree the copyright issue must be resolved, and urgently.
Very basic and very simple.
Meanwhile, onwards with Bennett’s paper as our kick-off.
Cheers!
January 15th, 2010 at 6:59 pm
I have to say I do prefer Todd Howe’s proposal suggested by John Barron in post #12 to Lincoff’s in its current incarnation. Maybe we can combine the best of both worlds, looking at Lincoff’s payment ideas for commercial use, while striking all Lincoff’s provisions for non profit private use?
January 15th, 2010 at 7:08 pm
@Dreddsnik 13 you have a point!
January 15th, 2010 at 7:13 pm
Hi Monkey:
I’ll try and find Todd and get permission to post the whole thing as an article, but for now http://tehowe.blogspot.com/2009/09/cost-copyright-and-embodiment.html :
Cheers!
January 15th, 2010 at 8:25 pm
What a strange concept, in a way, to conceive of? In an internet age, where information is linked directly, and where the mentioned text has already been reproduced into this comment thread, to talk of “permission to post”.
It’s already been seen, and is part of the public record.
Is it devalued in any way through being reproduced and seen more widely? If correct, then surely a positive effect; on the other hand, if incorrect, more widely questioned? Either way… public dissemination and scrutiny must be healthy.
January 15th, 2010 at 8:34 pm
@ John:
I think it’s polite to ask. Nothing to do with anything else.
Cheers!
January 18th, 2010 at 7:22 am
Jon et al:
Whether or not Crosbie thinks his position is “the only one with any validity” is immaterial. The smart way to move forward is to look beyond finding ways to adapt the legacy rules to new mediums a la Bennet Lincoff. Even if one thinks copyright is somehow salvageable, why not build business models on the assumption that it no longer exists? Such a situation represents the freest possible world; if a business model can work under those conditions, it can work in other conditions regardless of how copyright and royalty systems work. It’s just good business.
I believe supporting yet another “solution” revolving around 20th century thinking would be compromising my principles. I did not come to a2f2a to build an alliance with Billy’s FAC. I came here to work together with artists to help them explore NEW ways of earning money and connecting with their fans in light of the recent transformative changes we’ve experienced.
Too often, people make severe compromises in the hopes of finding enough of a “consensus” to advance a particular political agenda. The idea is perpetuated that progress can only be made when even the most ridiculous of opponents are on board. That’s false. The objective of the US Congress is not to pass a health care bill, but what that bill contains. Removing everything controversial to get more people supporting it does nothing for the American people.
Change is always going to be resisted, yet in our case the change has already occurred without any political “permission.” The world that Crosbie describes without copyright isn’t a dream, it’s already here. Organizations like FAC can try to buy new laws into existence that allow them to squeeze a dry teat for a few more dollars, or they can support and encourage their members as they try brave new business models.
No, I will never support a flawed, unsound proposal like the Bennet Lincoff Disaster. I’ll also answer the truly important questions in Crosbie’s “poll:” Disagree, Disagree.
The only gains reached by kowtowing to FAC are for a legacy organization hell-bent on a futile attempt to turn back time that has already failed, and the helpless pups desperately hoping to continue to suckle from it.
January 18th, 2010 at 8:13 am
@ SteelWolf:
“I did not come to a2f2a to build an alliance with Billy’s FAC.”
Nor did I. And it isn’t Billy’s FAC.
Meanwhile, for me, this isn’t about building an alliance. Please read, or re-read, my comment above.
Cheers!
January 18th, 2010 at 10:52 am
@ Comment #21, SteelWolf said: “Too often, people make severe compromises in the hopes of finding enough of a “consensus” to advance a particular political agenda. The idea is perpetuated that progress can only be made when even the most ridiculous of opponents are on board. That’s false.”
I completely agree.
Therefore, I’m not seeking support for my proposal from the “most ridiculous opponents” of copyright. To the contrary: I am relying on you and other copyright deniers to continue your rants in opposition to compromise. I also am relying on the equally irresponsible rants of the most rabid copyright maximalists.
In my opinion, neither group of extremists makes a substantively constructive contribution to the public debate. But together, they set unmistakably clear (though opposing) baselines against which my proposal stands in sharp contrast as a reasonable alternative that responsible policy makers could well adopt.
January 18th, 2010 at 12:00 pm
Bennett, your proposal is based on flawed reasoning from the start. Though you may have the best of intentions, you’re still trying to apply anachronistic concepts to modern times. Copyright is not necessary for artists to earn money today. It doesn’t have to be abolished to make this so – it’s already true.
You seem to think that finding a mythical “middle ground” will cause people to flock to your banner in acceptance. While a few of us continue to engage the audience of a2f2a, we are by no means representative of the greater online community. While you have been searching for “solutions” that will prevent the need to adapt, an entire generation of people is growing up realizing that digital files are free. Trying to pretend that sharing is “wrong” and people need to “opt in” to your licensing tax is futile. Sure, you may get a few converts, maybe even enough to claim success. But you continue to alienate a large and ever-growing segment of your potential market by refusing to even consider the reality of what is going on.
Build a model that works without government-sponsored crutches. That’s the only way to ensure your business works independently of the status of copyright.
January 18th, 2010 at 4:28 pm
@Comment #24, SteelWolf said:
(1) “Copyright is not necessary for artists to earn money today. “
In my proposal, I provide a means by which any artist can voluntarily live outside of the protections provided by copyright, a means by which such artists can give their recordings away for free if they wish.
But I will not support any proposal that affirmatively denies to artists the protections provided by copyright, as would a proposal that seeks the abolition of copyright itself.
Instead, in my proposal, I offer a comprehensive alternative regime under copyright (and neighboring rights) that allows all artists to maintain control of their own destinies in the digital context.
SteelWolf also said:
(2) “[A]n entire generation of people is growing up realizing that digital files are free.”
Wrong. They are growing up merely “believing” that digital files are free. But just because people are physically able to obtain recordings without paying for them, does not mean that those recordings are, or should be, free.
You could just as well say that radio broadcasters “realize” that music is free because they are physically able to publicly perform music without first obtaining a license from the local copyright collective. But, as you well know, broadcasters are not able to do that without risking exposure to substantial liability for copyright infringement. So, instead, radio station owners uniformly choose to operate lawfully by entering into copyright licenses.
Today, those who control the music industry have exercised their right under existing law to refuse to issue any licenses for P2P file-sharing of the recordings that they legally (if not physically) control. Because of this, it is simply not possible for consumers who wish to share those recordings through P2P to act lawfully.
Under my proposal, any and all consumers who wish to offer recordings for download by others through decentralized P2P could do so lawfully by obtaining a license and paying the license fee that will be due. Indeed, in contrast to the way things are now, under my proposal, it will be entirely within the hands of each individual consumer to determine whether or not they wish to engage in lawful P2P.
And, finally, SteelWolf said:
(3) That I should abandon my “proposal [which] is based on flawed reasoning from the start[,]” and “[b]uild a model that works without government-sponsored crutches.”
To that I say only this: A right without a remedy ain’t no right at all.
January 18th, 2010 at 8:00 pm
@steelwolf 24 :
The reality is, copyright exists and has done for a couple hundred years and one generation of unlicensed file-sharing is not likely to change that fact. File-sharers represent something like 20% of the internet population (and that may be a rather exagerated figure). Lincoff doesn’t need people to ‘flock’ to him. He simply needs to convince policy makers that his proposal is an effective way forward. Removing the sales model and freeing music is indeed part of his proposal and doing this at a low cost. This is not to say that making music isn’t costly. Most people are willing to pay a fee to obtain their driver’s license. This license allows you to drive an automobile legally. Some people know how to drive a car perhaps better than some of the people who have obtained their driver’s license. Yet, the people who drive without a license are acting illegally even though perhaps they have a better reaction time or better eyesight, etc. Bennett’s proposal presents an opportunity for file-sharers to contribute at a minimal cost, it allows them to become legal ‘distributors’ of music (and yes, p2p is meant to be a ‘distribution system’), it removes the ’sales’ model which free’s up artists from asking for your money, rather, they would be asking for your attention. Since the main objective to creating music is for it to be heard, this seems like a natural progression. Music is really a ’service’. You can’t really ’sell’ it. It flows like water and you turn it on or off. Refusing to license p2p was where the industry made a mistake over a decade ago. If it had done, we wouldn’t be having these discussions today and there wouldn’t have been a series of RIAA lawsuits or a 3-strikes Digital Britain Bill.
Whether or not you want to accept the present reality of copyright and the way things work isn’t necessary for a reasonable solution to be presented to policy makers. Nothing’s to stop you from helping artists ’see your light’. In the meanwhile, while you’re busy doing that, we can do our thing by working towards the reasonable solutions.
January 19th, 2010 at 6:51 am
Your proposal is simply copyright under another name, something I attempted to address in a previous article. Your artists receive little “protection” (From what? Their fans? Other artists?) from copyright today, and your proposal does little to change that. It simply attempts to reinforce the myth that choosing the best price for something is “wrong.”
As I’ve said, no proposal is necessary, nor does copyright need to be explicitly abolished. Copyright is irrelevant in today’s world, and adaptive artists have already figured that out.
Crosbie’s “dream world” is the real world. The “dream world” is one where artists maintain some kind of control over works once released to the public. That fiction was easier to believe when copies were difficult to make, but now, the only people still deluded are those who want desperately to continue making money from it.
Why, because you think they shouldn’t be free, that makes it so? Look around you. They are free, whether your like it or not. As many have said numerous times, the question of whether or not this “should” be the case is extraneous. This is the world, and the smart businesspeople are adapting to it, not pinning their hopes on a fantastical proposal that requires an entire cultural shift to be viable.
Rednex said it better:
Progress needs no remedy.
January 19th, 2010 at 6:56 am
If there’s no problem, Indiana, why are you here? Why are you on board with an organization supporting three-strikes legislation? Why do you want a taxation system to give you free money?
If copyright works so well, stop all of this and keep doing what you’ve been doing. One generation won’t change anything, maybe you can just wait it out.
You keep insisting that your view is correct in the face of incontrovertible evidence to the contrary. You came to this site with an agenda and your refusal to budge from it regardless of what is said to you makes you look the fool.
January 19th, 2010 at 9:13 am
@Steelwolf You aren’t making much sense. I’m not on the board of any organisation that support’s three strikes. I’ve been actively campaigning against three strikes. I have openly spoken and even confirmed here in writing that I believe that copyright needs reformation. Your comment makes absolutely no sense.
January 19th, 2010 at 9:19 am
@steelwolfe Why is it that whenever you get annoyed or upset (or have difficulty discussing), you simply make up untruths about your alleged opponent aligning them with organisations and beliefs that have nothing to do with the person?
January 19th, 2010 at 9:35 am
@Steelwolf
As I suggested, why don’t you keep working at convincing artists to sell their recordings and conince songwriters to sell their songs to artists (who don’t have the money to pay for songs upfront in most cases, except for those who are signed to the corporate/majors which is primarily why songwriters have worked on spec in exchange for a royalty in the past and at present). So, why don’t you leave us to work on what we are working on to present to policy makers and you go ahead and do your thing convincing artists about your system. There is no reason why both can’t or wouldn’t work together simultaneously anyway.
January 19th, 2010 at 12:07 pm
29,30:
You are “against” three strikes so long as it works as a “stick” to get people to agree to your other flawed proposals. I shouldn’t have to explain that “on board” doesn’t mean the same thing as “on THE board,” and even if not a member, you seem to be in lockstep with FAC positions.
31:
I thought helping artists to adapt to the digital age was what a2f2a was all about. That’s why many of us are here.
January 19th, 2010 at 2:24 pm
” I thought helping artists to adapt to the digital age was what a2f2a was all about. That’s why many of us are here. ”
Me too.
But somehow, i’m not all that surprised that when examples of other artists actually succeeding without the need for lawsuits and labels are the least commented on by the ‘Artists’ who hold collection societies and internet taxes so dear. Thanks for pushing Steel, I can’t get anywhere, maybe you can express things a bit better. DA expresses things a lot better than I as well, and I am exhausted.
January 19th, 2010 at 8:02 pm
And Crosbie expresses things far better than I. At this point I feel like I’ve wasted a lot of time going around in circles – care to contact me via email? It’s on my site.
January 20th, 2010 at 6:23 am
@Steelwolf, Crosbie, Bill, Dreddsnik: Just a quick question. If you put $10,000 into your bank account, who should get the interest? Is it you or your banker? You already did the job to earn that money, right?
January 20th, 2010 at 6:43 am
@Steelwolf, Crosbie, Bill, Dreddsnik: Second question, if you borrow $10,000 from the bank to use, who should earn the interest?
January 20th, 2010 at 9:23 am
@Indiana
I’m not sure the bank examples fit here, as money lending has no copyright laws attached, it is a business contract. As far as I know, no one here has said artists can’t sign business contracts with fans(or anyone else), if anything just the opposite has been suggested.
January 20th, 2010 at 2:47 pm
@monkey So, are you saying you aren’t able to answer either question?
January 20th, 2010 at 3:45 pm
@Indianna
I’ll give you the same answer for both. As we are dealing with contract law, interest should be given or paid to whoever the contract states it should be. This in no way detracts from my point, which is your examples really don’t fit.
January 20th, 2010 at 3:57 pm
Billy: “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.”
I utterly agree, while some are arguing on lost principles the industry is successfully managing to get laws together that will kick many off the internet.
We will not see the utopian vision of copyright that some people want in *this* round of the “war”.. Someone once said that “A war is won by inches.” and I strongly feel that holds equally true on this topic.
The FAC should help get 3 strikes off the table as it is the most critical point at this time, then we can start to talk about the many other aspects. I want artists to get some money, I don’t mind copyright on the whole and I might be more typical of the “average” downloader than the more vocal and extreme “visionaries” (not a flame or deregatory, as visionaries are needed)
January 20th, 2010 at 5:14 pm
@Indiana “So, are you saying you aren’t able to answer either question? ”
If the question has nothing to do with the situation at hand, then any answer would be meaningless.
“This in no way detracts from my point, which is your examples really don’t fit. ”
Bingo.
Bravo Monkey.
January 20th, 2010 at 5:35 pm
@ALL:
How ’bout a different angle, in an effort to break the circle of “dysfunction”?…
The same arguments get recycled because there is a difference in what a REMEDY should be – not in what the issues themselves are. And, let’s face it, not everyone here is really equipped to properly debate the reasons why or why not.
I would agree to a statement that focuses on where there actually IS a consensus – in the ISSUES themselves, for example:
1) The present copyright system is failing artists and consumers, and innovators. We all seem to agree that *something* needs to be done with copyright.
2) Filesharing needs to be decriminalized, at least in the case of “non-commercial” infringement.
Unless I’m mistaken, these and a few other key points of contention are shared “across the board” in this forum. These could be “starting points” in forming a useful “collective” point of view.
Think about it – Might be easier than ya think!
At least there would be a base to expand upon as we go along, regardless of the individual opinions involved.
If you think this approach is worth it, you can start adding your own points to the list.
January 20th, 2010 at 6:20 pm
@Dreddsnik 41 That actually explains quite a bit. Your belief that my question is irrelevant really explains everything.
January 20th, 2010 at 6:30 pm
@monkey 39, that’s because you don’t seem to actually understand how royalties work. This is one of the main problems about this perception that people have.
January 20th, 2010 at 8:04 pm
DA:
Where exactly does that “get” us? a2f2a is not necessary to fight three strikes, which is itself being actively supported by Billy’s FAC. Want to fight three strikes? Fight three strikes. But I’ve gotten the impression that the FAC position is supposed to be a “power play” to extract some kind of “concession” from the few of us who bother to participate in this circus.
I’ve made my reasons for being here quite clear. I think we’d be making a lot more progress if there weren’t others trying to manipulate this community to get “lesser of two evils” laws passed to protect their royalty streams.
January 20th, 2010 at 8:19 pm
@DA 42 yes, agree completely. The group needs to capitalize upon the strengths of consensus that have been shown. My ‘questions’ were only to point out a fundamental understanding about a couple of basics. I’ve asked two easy questions that people are not willing to answer. But, the two questions might clear up some fundamental myths that surround the debate. It’s because I keep hearing and reading these things like “well, that would mean composers would actually have to work for a living”… yet, I’m 100% convinced that had anyone set foot in Nashville, they wouldn’t dare say such a thing. When I read something like “well, composer/songwriters should simply sell their work just like a plumber”. I can’t help but wonder how betrayed their ideals have been by a system that promotes ‘rock stars’ who aren’t necessarily living that dream. In the film and music business, things are not ever and have never been as they have seemed. The videos aren’t real. Having said that, Nor is the starving artist who can’t make ends meet scenario. Crosbie says ’sell your recordings’, of course, some artists have done some dodgey and desperate deals and have sold them for less than their ‘later and commercialised value’ the truth is, the music world is no more concrete than the financial world. It’s speculative. it’s “creative”. But, more than that kind of ‘physical’, ‘economical’, or ‘tangible’ realm, the influence of the arts, and now we speak in terms of music, creates a huge bridge. Something about music and also film can help bridge gaps. There is an influence that doesn’t have an economic value. There is a human relationship. There is a value and it isn’t about how infinitely the value can be copied. (in fact, in my opinion, let it be copied to the ends of the earth. No authoritarian government would ever agree with me on that point. Of course not, people vote symbolically, and after that, they’re simply slaves to the system.) Music, art, film, however, has a power to awaken. So, the hear factor is important. In my ‘agenda’… or better yet, my ‘drive’ or my belief system is the hope for the public to bless them for what they’ve heard.Not like ‘worship’ them. Simply contribute a wee bit financially. Government would rather penalize, criticize, demonize. Artists would rather exchange, deliberate, reform and sometimes rebel. People want to have a voice. Artists tend to reflect the voices of the people. Does it make sense? All I’m trying to evoke here is, we have to ‘faire face’. The only way to win is to look the opponent in the eye. Am I a total coward because I truly believe that the only way to get what we all seem to want is to do it with a very calculated and strategic agenda that works and tries to give everyone what they want or does that make me apathetic? Or does it strategically turn the inches into miles? I don’t know? I really don’t know. In fact, I know nothing. I only have experience to work with here. It’s like this, if you’ve dealt with government, if you’ve lived under the the thumb of a few governments, if you’ve done start-ups, worked in the music business, done releases and really felt the impact, you might really care a lot about it all. You might not like what I say or what I do, or what I believe, but, you’ll surely agree with my convictions if only you’d let me tell you why?
January 20th, 2010 at 11:11 pm
@SteelWolf:
What I was getting at was to start where there is actually a consensus (with the issues we have already agreed are the issues), and work with THAT, and not some “compromise of principles” we can obviously see isn’t going to happen tomorrow.
The thing I’m trying to come to grips with is that, though “we” don’t seem to “need” anyone to continue fighting for what’s fair, the fact is, the clock IS ticking, and there ARE things in the works RIGHT NOW that dissenting voices should be directed at, and “we” are not “there”.
The online community certainly has the capacity to make a voice on its own, but it’s not showing any signs of being able to influence anything to any useful degree at the moment. It stands a far better chance of being heard NOW, if certain elements of the artist and fan communities can “organize” as a unit, and get themselves included in the talks soon.
I’m not trying to sidetrack the debates themselves, and I don’t think Billy really means to imply that concessions are needed on our convictions either. I want to believe he’s just trying to express that the world is not waiting for forums like a2f2a to find their common ground, and we need to do *something* if we want to be a part of it.
I just don’t think he’s been very good at saying it. (No offense, Billy!)
January 21st, 2010 at 3:23 am
Quoted DA 47
“the world is not waiting for forums like a2f2a to find their common ground, and we need to do *something* if we want to be a part of it.”
This is pretty much what I put in my comment above.
I doubt my minimal presence was missed, but I haven’t posted for a few months until last night, and when I read through posts and comments do you know how much had changed, or how much progress appears to have been made?
Zero.
Its exactly the same tired old arguments repeated over and over again. While that is going on the RIAA, MPAA, BPI and all are lobbying and moving against the ordinary citizen. Billy is right, he just wants to go back and say “filesharers are human, they would compromise.” because perhaps the existing view of a filesharer is someone who steals and has no interest in buying or paying. He *wants* to say that isn’t the case. The result would be that we have a recognised body able to put forward a face to fight (in the first case, 3 strikes as its the most immediate threat), one with mainstream media contacts.
Does anyone seriously think or believe that we will get anywhere if we stick to our guns and refuse to even entertain compromise?
The government is not waiting on the verdict from a2f2a before passing Mandelsons devil spawn laws, or deciding if ISP’s should detect and deal with filesharing themselves.
January 21st, 2010 at 6:45 am
@ DA:
How about a FAAC – a Fans And Artists Committee – comprising 4 FAC members (not necessarily board members) and 4 a2f2a members. Objective: to create a simple No Three Strikes proposal to put to put forward for ratification by both groups, and then to be published on and offline as a joint statement.
The 8 members can easily meet online by one of a number of means. There’d be a deadline for them to come up with something by, say the end of February (or sooner, if possible).
The group’s first objective would be to outline a discussion plan and terms of reference, and to cite the elements a proposal would need to contain.
Just a thought.
Cheers!
January 21st, 2010 at 10:40 am
@Jon,
“FAAC – a Fans And Artists Committee”
Do you think you could get 4 FAC members to go for that idea? Any possibility of ferreting out at least ONE who didn’t vote for three strikes?
January 21st, 2010 at 10:57 am
@ Monkey:
Relatively speaking, only a handful of members — and the board, of course — actually voted for it.
Cheers!
January 21st, 2010 at 11:53 am
” @Dreddsnik 41 That actually explains quite a bit. Your belief that my question is irrelevant really explains everything ”
The fact that you continue to use analogies that have nothing to do with the facts explains even more.
January 22nd, 2010 at 8:11 am
@Dreddsnik 52, that’s the whole point, you believe that I’ve used an analogy, but, you haven’t heard the analogy yet! which is rather funny because all I did was ask two questions that none of you want to answer and are playing ‘dumb’ instead pretending that I’m referring to contracts. The trouble is mainly that people don’t seem to understand the royalty system or how songwriter’s work. Many of the comments here have reflected that fact.
January 22nd, 2010 at 10:34 am
I gave you an answer, just because you didn’t like it doesn’t mean you didn’t get one. I’ll repeat it again here:
“I’ll give you the same answer for both. As we are dealing with contract law, interest should be given or paid to whoever the contract states it should be. This in no way detracts from my point, which is your examples really don’t fit.”
I know you disagree with the last part reiterating that your analogy doesn’t fit, but none the less if you re-read it you will see there is a very clear and unambiguous answer to your questions in the statement
January 22nd, 2010 at 11:26 am
” all I did was ask two questions that none of you want to answer and are playing ‘dumb’ ”
Now THAT’S irony.
January 22nd, 2010 at 9:00 pm
@dreddsnik …Irony, so it is.
the reality is Dredd, this is something that I’m very dedicated to. Something simply doesn’t spin right in a world where people are beginning to think that songwriter’s and artists are lazy because they rely on a royalty system. It’s crazy. Nobody thinks that investors or bankers are ‘lazy’ because they rely on using other people’s money for interest payments or risky stock investments. (Well, at least now Obama is taking a stand about that gig, but, we’ll see.) The reality is though, artists and songwriters aren’t fat cats on wall street. But, songwriters speculate in a similar way (without anywhere near the same returns) but, they do work day and night. Not for some big ‘bonus’ payout. They work to insure that their mortgage gets paid or their bills, or whatever and they do it on spec because every song is simply a little baby that they hope will one day grow up and be heard. They can’t sell those babies outright because nobody knows how those babies will grow up. For the songwriter, it’s almost always too early. It’s always about a ‘premature baby’. The songwriter has to pitch their baby to get them into a good school basically. The artist takes the baby and tries to work with it and get it in front of an artist who can deliver it. (One reason why it’s nearly impossible for a songwriter to expect and artist to pay upfront to use a song). If the songwriter has raised the baby and placed it with the right artist, then hopefully, he will get a return. The return is based upon speculation. It’s a ‘royalty’. (Money -e.g. ‘investment’ is actually simpler than this in some ways, but, only when you can place it into mutual funds or long-term investments.) The songwriter only has the long-term investment once his song becomes a confirmed hit. This is kind of the reason why the royalty world is the only world that actually works for composers and songwriters. We get paid based upon “use”.
I wish you could at least try to understand with a little bit of empathy the reason why I feel so strongly about this. It’s really not about ‘taxing’ people, it’s more about hopefully making sure that there is a way for new artists to be able to get a leg up the ladder and for songwriters to be able to continue the work that they do (which is very critical. If we were talking about houses. The songs are the real estate. The artists live in those houses and make them homes.) It’s already (and always has been) a very trying and difficult life when it comes to being an artist and even much more speculative for the composer/songwriter. I understand Bill’s idea about a songwriter traveling up and down the border’s pitching and selling their songs.. but, those were the days of posh Monarchies and plantations. Does that seem like something that would work int he land of digital progress?
January 22nd, 2010 at 9:08 pm
@Dredd… the end of the first ‘long’ paragraph should have read ” The songwriter only gets a return once the song becomes a confirmed ‘hit’and this would indeed become his ‘long term’ investment. (all the while, he would be pitching new babies in hopes for a return. A gamble, indeed. Speculative, of course. But, the songwriter is also an artist, so, he continues working.)
anyway, do you see how I mean? Do you really think that a songwriter can simply go door-to-door and sell songs?
January 23rd, 2010 at 2:21 pm
“I understand Bill’s idea about a songwriter traveling up and down the border’s pitching and selling their songs.. but, those were the days of posh Monarchies and plantations.”
Right. They were also the days when social networking wasn’t only a keyboard away. You have options available outside the system that Carolan didn’t have and you don’t have to wear out as much shoe leather to take advantage of them. Are corporations any less oppressive than monarchies? Don’t plantations still exist? I’m off to wherever Crosbie went. This is hopeless.
January 23rd, 2010 at 4:59 pm
” I understand Bill’s idea about a songwriter traveling up and down the border’s pitching and selling their songs.. but, those were the days of posh Monarchies and plantations.”
Even more irony.
” This is hopeless. ”
I understand how you feel, it is getting tiresome. But this site isn’t supposed to be for ‘them’, at least I had hoped not. It should be for the likes of you and Clark and other artists that think they might be able to do it on their own, and want to hear about ways they can make it happen, try to let the complaints of the already wealthy slide by and look at some of the methods mentioned that DO bypass the labels.
The ones with the most privilege will always be the loudest when demanding compromise.
January 23rd, 2010 at 8:20 pm
@Dreddsnik from what context did the ‘this is hopeless’ quote come from? and what the “the ones with the most privilege will always be the loudest when demanding compromise” come from? What is a ‘label’? It’s simply an investor that does a deal just like in every other business on the planet.
There is a tiny group of people (like singer/songwriters who could get away with the Crosbie plan. I actually mentioned that to him) my issue is about ‘what about all the other components’. What about the songwriter’s? and bill says they should do like one particular figure in history 2 centuries ago did and horse back up and down the border pitching songs… but, bill says that now, since there is ’social networking’ available, that should make everything ’simples’ again somehow and songwriters are now able to pitch their songs to artists via myspace or youtube. Again, not very realistic. For the songwriter / composer, having the availability of ’social networks’ isn’t going to change the speculative nature nor the economic situation that most artists would be in. All I’m saying is, if composer’s pitch songs, it only seems to work if it’s for a ‘cut’. (like interest, like a percentage-based deal).. that’s what ‘royalties’ actually ARE.
January 23rd, 2010 at 8:53 pm
Dreddsnik,
I wouldn’t consider myself an artist (Clark – yes). I’ve produced a few records (John Eller & the DTs, Mike Felten, Copyright Anarchists), but never with the idea that I have either the talent or desire to do so for a living. That being said, I’ve worked closely with enough talented artists – all of whom I care about deeply – to realize that the great majority are not benefitting from a system of copyright or it’s various pay and enforcement schemes. It’s time to move on. In this case, to a different conversation.
January 23rd, 2010 at 10:36 pm
“It’s time to move on. In this case, to a different conversation.”
@bill:
Bravo, sir!
The pro-establishment crowd continues to push the idea that somehow, 3 Strikes will be the inevitable consequence for not trying to “fix” copyright.
Yet, it seems the only real inevitabilities here are the demise of copyright, and the eventual dissolution of any processes designed to reinforce copyright – 3 Strikes included. (After all, once copyright falls, there can be no more justification for such things.)
Let’s face it, if it takes a proposal that would have the entire world wide web turn itself inside-out, just to APPEAR to be addressing the failures of copyright, then surely it’s evident that copyright is either sufficiently broken, or simply should never have been attempted to apply to the Internet in the first place.
This why the FAC should at least be agreeing, at least in principle, to one of Billy’s statements – there is no “technical solution” – and considering the inevitable consequence of supporting something to the contrary.
One of those consequences will certainly be damaging the effectiveness of that same Internet in promoting new music/artists in the future.
I’m all for simplicity, AND leaving the functionality and freedom of the Internet intact. Refusing to keep jumping on the copyright bandwagon accomplishes this already.
January 24th, 2010 at 3:54 am
@DA,
Maybe instead of the conversation being “can or cannot songwriters peddle songs for a fee?” it should be “where can songwriters peddle their songs?” It’s not limited to writing jingles, although that is certainly an option. Does Broadway still produce musicals? Has not Danny Elfman made a substantial living composing for movies and TV? How did Carole King earn a living before Tapestry? If you can sell your rights to a publisher, how big a jump is it to sell your songs to a successful performer or show? These are not 200 year old examples. There’s an ongoing market for songs. I’d be more than happy to engage ideas on the second question (where?) than the first one (can?). Even a blind man from the 17th century could see that.
January 24th, 2010 at 10:41 am
Sorry Indy, I’m just too stupid to understand you, but you alluded that you figured that out already. duh hurrr. That’s why ah’s po’ and yo’ not. Don’t y’all worry bout me none.
January 24th, 2010 at 1:06 pm
Bill [58], I’ve just got back to the UK from Banff (Alberta, Canada) so that’s where I’ve been (snowboarding).
I’m still interested in developing the conversation concerning how artists can sell their recordings (copies are passé) directly to their fans (instead of labels), or songwriters can sell their songs, composers can sell their scores, etc.
Money is work, and this is why, fundamentally, the artist/fan exchange must be about art for money. The artist and their fans voluntarily AGREE to exchange an item of the artist’s work for an equitable amount of the fans’ money. Whether recording, song, or score, whether for pennies from the many or guineas from the few.
The 18th century anachronism of copyright was based on the unethical suspension of everyone’s cultural liberty (to freely copy each other’s published work, to freely sing each other’s songs, etc.), in order to then sell to people that which they were forbidden to make themselves (copies, covers, remixes, etc.).
As you have well demonstrated, artists don’t need to suspend the liberty of their audience in order to do business. That sort of thing is desired by unscrupulous manufacturers of copies, those printers or record labels who don’t want any competition, not even from fans. Similarly, not only do artists not need a monopoly (that printers or record labels covet), they don’t need to forcibly extract money from their audience through taxation (or compulsory license, levy, etc.).
a2f2a does not need to waste time petitioning policymakers, lobbying legislators, or pleading with politicians for laws to be changed or new taxes to be introduced. No law needs to be changed for enlightened artists and their fans to do business without copyright (given it can be neutralised). However, copyright DOES need to be abolished if people are to be protected from prosecution by publishing corporations (and unenlightened artists wealthy enough to hire lawyers). But, hey, let’s leave changing the law (whether abolition, reform, compulsory licensing, Internet taxation, or more draconian reinforcement), for conversations elsewhere. It takes years for the law to be changed through petition, and the vast funds of the incumbent publishing corporations for it to be changed through lobbying. But, don’t lose hope. You don’t need to wait years. You don’t need to corrupt politicians. Even without such time and money, artists and their fans can start doing business with each other TODAY – with respect, and without threat.
Of course, copyright will be reinforced anyway. That’s both its inexorable trajectory and its inevitable doom. And as for the ‘alternative compensation scheme’, the Internet/ISP tax that umpteen people have proposed over the years (the folly old school artists are easily persuaded is the ’solution’), that does take lobbying, fomenting popular support, etc. However, it is a distraction – even if it obtains sufficient support one day, it doesn’t help anyone today.
We’re here to be positive, not negative, libertarian not draconian. We’re here to explore doing business TODAY not tomorrow. We aren’t here to figure out how to stop people sharing music, punish people for selling mixes of their CDs, or to decide that people should be fined if they sing someone else’s song without permission or refuse to pay a license fee.
Instead of being a site concerned with how to persuade people not to share or how to legalise sharing through taxation, a2f2a.com should be concerned with how artists and their fans can do business with each other directly (irrespective of copyright, without the benefit of any tax or copyright license revenue, without labels and their lawyers).
There are artists and fans already doing it, already doing business directly, already discounting the relevance of copyright to their business. Copyright and its licensing is irrelevant to ALL artists, especially those artists whose work is digital, or whose work can be easily digitised.
I’ll rephrase those three options I keep mentioning:
1) Reinforce copyright
2) Legalise non-commercial sharing via an ISP tax
3) Fuck copyright, fuck taxation – Let’s do business, let’s share freely
The first is happening anyway. The second is ‘Lincoff et al’ (and will take years, if ever). The third is also happening anyway, but it could do with some help. It’s only in the latter case that the bulk of the fans’ money actually reaches the artist – instead of publishers or collection societies (aka tax collectors).
The decision at hand is whether a2f2a takes option 2 and gets in to bed with FAC, Billy Bragg, Indiana Gregg, and Bennet Lincoff et al, or whether it takes option 3.
Is a2f2a going to be focussed on building a popular movement to legalise non-commercial file-sharing through the imposition of an Internet tax, OR, is it going to be focussed on helping artists and fans miss out the middleman, and start a revolution by reverting to the pre-copyright business model of exchanging art for money, leaving everyone’s cultural liberty (intact and untaxed)?
Is a2f2a about changing copyright law (to introduce a new compulsory license), or is it about doing business without copyright?
Do the artists and fans a2f2a is concerned about have lawyers and liberties to be suspended or licensed? Or do they have art and money they want to exchange, and liberty to keep?
January 24th, 2010 at 2:11 pm
@bill:
“Where…?” is indeed the right question!
It’s really a basic “Marketing 101″ principle that seems to have gotten lost somewhere in the shuffle.
Much better than the other questions, “HOW can we keep selling the same thing, in the same way, at the same prices, to the same people, when they won’t buy it?”, or “HOW can we MAKE them buy it?”
January 24th, 2010 at 2:12 pm
@Dredd:
(STOP THAT! Or you’re gonna get me in trouble!)
[Turns to hide snickering]
January 24th, 2010 at 2:40 pm
@bill That’s my point. It would mean that only the more ‘wealthy’ or ‘established’ artists, bands, etc or shows would be able to afford a ‘buy-out’. But, even so, for example, even broadway and/or Vegas shows pay performance royalties when they use other people’s music. So, what you are saying in many ways limits the ’start-up’ artist who might not be equipped with songwriting or composing skills. You might say that these really great singers should simply learn to write their own songs. But, I know quite a few great singers who simply don’t have the talent for writing songs. But, whether they could afford to buy an album’s worth of songs from a decent songwriter. Songs are the most important factor when determining the success of most artists. With or without copyright, a royalty system e.g. even an agreement between an artist and the songwriter based upon a percentage (which is basically all a royalty is) seems like a more workable DIY solution that expecting artists to simpy buy songs outright from songwriters. IMO
January 24th, 2010 at 2:47 pm
So, personally, I think that if Crosbie’s plan were to work, then songwriter’s would need to do a deal with the artist/band based upon a percentage of the sale of the upfront recordings. So, if artist A sells their ‘recordings’ directly to his/her fans, songwriter A would get a percentage of the sales based upon how many songs he/she contributed. I don’t think that very many artists would be able to buy songs directly from songwriters. It would probably put strain on them financially before they ever set foot into the recording studio and then, what if the song turned out to be no good for the artist, then they would be out of pocket for nothing.
January 24th, 2010 at 5:06 pm
Sounds like something a label would ask itself, before investing in either a new artist/band or new music. The only difference is that the label can often choose to take such risks, as it has money to lose.
Doesn’t this just go along with normal risk analysis when making any investment? I don’t think guarantees were ever built into any such ventures.
I think you already know most of us think about any proposal that tries to create such guarantees.
In what you refer to as the “Crosbie plan”, it would be incumbent upon ALL participants to strike the appropriate deals for themselves. There’s nothing wrong with asking for royalties or licensing in the process from those who stand to profit directly from the deal – these kind of contracts are just as binding and more straightforward and effective than copyright. You establish the profit, and it travels a direct line back to you (no middlemen chipping away at it, or “losing track” of it).
Once again, goes along with the definition of a free market system.
January 24th, 2010 at 5:37 pm
game manufacturers, personalized ringtones, theme park productions, educational productions (classroom films). Without the restriction of copyright, songwriters can also take advantage of another element of their craft – arranging. i.e it already exists with orchesral works in classical music. Branson shows, Vegas shows, – they all have a need for composers adept in the art of arrangements. Animated web sites like JibJab. Anyone else have any ideas where songwriters can ply their craft?
January 24th, 2010 at 6:02 pm
Absolutely! and the tiny independent artist isn’t able to afford such a risk. It completely does go along with the risk analysis for any investment. You are often spot-on, by the way. I’m simply saying that via the ‘Crosbie plan’, an ‘upfront’ from a ‘normal’ or ’start-up’ artist would be a very ‘risky’ investment. One that I wouldn’t recommend. That’s what I was saying on the other thread actually, whether there is ‘copyright’ or ‘no copyright’ the same situation applies. Copyright is nothing more than a ‘protection’ placed on top of any ‘deal’. I (myself) don’t conciously work within ‘copyright’. I tend to work within the framework of ‘deals’. When I do a ‘deal’ (be it music or other product) it’s simply a question of striking a chord that both (or all) parties feel comfortable with and believe they can work with. So, I agree with you’re no. 70 in principal. I wonder, do you think that maybe perhaps the only positive reason for why ‘copyright’ and ‘IP law’ have been put into place as a protection for creative people could be due to an apathetic or dysfunctional side that artistic people seem to possess? I don’t know. Yet, I see how artistic people are often taken advantage of. These ‘laws’ of copyright (which have been used and easily exploited by the ‘corporate interest’,) were put there for what? for why? Do you believe there was some form of forward-thinking agenda or do you believe that they were put there in order to protect a group of people who created intangible goods that were at least worthy enough to have some form of protection from the law so that it would make it more difficult for the more ‘prowesssed’ corportate entity or individual to take advantage of? Do you believe that the music industry has taken the piss with it. Sure they have becasue for a while they were the ‘middlemen’ that you describe. So, yep, I agree with you.
With me, I’m not actually thinking copyright. I’m assessing deals. It’s not copyright that efffects me much. (like, on a personal level.) Yet, I do rely on the ‘deals’ and the royalty system is a ‘deal’ in my mind. Do you see where I’m coming from?
Like I’ve said several times, I believe that copyright for the digigtal world needs a good shake. I agree that it doesn’t work. I hope, however, that a system could be put into place that is based upon ‘fair use’. I’m hoping that we’re all trying to find that system.
Having said that, I also have had some experience with the political world and policy makers work within the world of ‘deals’ as well. The whole ‘proposal’ and ‘counter-proposal’ dance still applies and cannot be ignored. So, in some ways, sure, you guys are right. I do believe that the only way to push down an idea or proposal would be to come up with a strategic counter-proposal that does a job (even if it’s only for an interim period) and moves things forward. I didn’t creat 3-strikes (for example) but, it would be cool to work out a way to stave that kind of policy off and work on something that makes those kind of logistic and strategically negative effects disappear forever. We can’t really afford to play inside of the totally ‘ideal’ or ‘utopic’ range because it seems to me that those decisions are being made for us. That’s how I see it. Can you see anything positive coming from three-strikes while we all muddle around and argue? It’s frustrating because there are solutions that could work essentially, but, everyone seems to be headstrong about the fine lines and details. We’ll be here for a millineum. yet, most of us have the same goals. It’s kinda fun to debate. But, we do probably look like a bunch of meandering fools in the meanwhile during which time a foot-hold has been determined and yet again the muso’s aren’t organized enough to speak their peace and demand to be heard. grief.
January 24th, 2010 at 6:23 pm
@crosbie 65. I like your thoughts. But, I’m thinking that we’re a li’l late with it all. Seeing how three strikes and digital britain is at our front doors now. Are you saying “let them (government) spend those millions making these huge mistakes and we’ll just sit back and laugh as everybody pays more taxes for a ridiculous and corrupt policy? Like.. “hang on now, sit tight everybody, let’s just watch them spend (our)’useless’ money (money that could have been used for something worthwhile?)” I’m not into wasting money guys. Not due to a recession or even in full-throttle economic bliss, it’s just not cool for resources to be channeled into something that produces absolutely nothing. (or money being used by the wrong people for the wrong purposes). You know what I’m saying.
Here we go again. ‘Policy’ is being made whether or not we decide to evade and avoid ‘copyright’ or not. It’s partially because people are ‘trading’ other people’s goods without license to do so. It’s now partially because some people find it interesting to create empty policy and exploit.
As far as solutions, on one hand, we have a dream philosophy that will take ages to even begin to establish, on the other hand, we have a more ‘in your face’ and maybe less philosophically pleasing strategy that might lead into the ‘ideal’ direction and stave off the criminals who are trying to sell ‘policy’ and bleed the people at the moment.
January 24th, 2010 at 6:52 pm
@bill 71 yep, totally agree. How does it apply with the direct artist to songwriter relationship? That’s what I’m trying to address. Do you think it’s a ‘one off’ payment, or is it a ‘deal’ between artist and songwriter based upon a percentage? i see it more as the latter (at least for unestablished acts.?)
January 24th, 2010 at 11:55 pm
@v Indiana
I was under the impression that you believe that the songwriter/artist relationship is the only one available and that a “no copyright” arrangement would devastate incomes for songwriters. I’m glad that you seem to accept, now, that there are other outlets for songwriters. As for the songwriter/artist percentage deal (a contract), I think it works. The folks at the publishing houses in Nashville might not like it. But it works. I’m not sure I buy $10,000 as the price point in a straight sell though. In a country where a songwriter would only have to write 3 songs a year to earn an average living, I suppose there would be some balking. Price points are negotiable. The better or more higher profile songwriter would have better leverage, certainly. Sort of like the more experienced and reputable carpenter.
January 25th, 2010 at 2:01 am
@Indiana:
The bottom line would have to be, whatever deals are worked out between any of the participants would have to be realistic to begin with. The idea is to be happy with what you get at the time of the deal, taking your “value”, the purchase, and any other factors (such as royalty conditions) into account.
As to your question of a possible “agenda” in the very design of IP, I would say ABSOLUTELY! The originators may not have envisioned digital information, but they certainly had an idea they intended to get rich on, that was projected beyond the printing press.
As for what Crosbie meant, he’s simply saying that a2f2a, as a collective, should probably make a choice between a mission of fighting the corporate movement, and a mission of cutting out the Middleman. The first is something we quite naturally ended up talking about, but the second was really what we came here to accomplish.
To continue Crosbie’s angle, those in the business of IP are as rich and resourceful as they are determined. Any major concessions to IP laws and privileges will take eons to acquire, while any reinforcements they want for copyright seem to happen overnight. Getting involved in that fight is not going to help artists get a better deal tomorrow, or in this decade, regardless of how much organization and impact we’re capable of.
Copyright will die from its own self-destructive agenda, no matter what draconian laws they push through in the future. It has long been having a negative effect on far too many things outside its legal realm, and, as more and more artists continue to do business without copyright, the bottom will fall right out of it.
Anything they introduce in the near future will just cause a large enough revolt calling for it to be pulled back, as is already happening with 3 Strikes.
This site’s top portion reflects a mission that we thought all along was the point of this whole exercise: “start your own revolution – cut out the middleman!”
January 25th, 2010 at 3:28 pm
Indiana, DevilsAdvocate understands.
There is already a philosophy, one that has been established and largely forgotten. It is not a dream, but the natural rights philosophy as expounded by Thomas Paine that formed the basis of the US constitution (and was promptly ignored by those industrialists who had the monopolies of copyright and patent enacted in their own commercial interest).
If you want to understand how to do business without the benefit of a monopoly (and license fees, levies, royalties, etc.) then the natural rights philosophy explains how, i.e. by not seeking to suspend the liberty of your audience, nor to seek to tax it for the use they make of your work, only to seek an agreeable and equitable exchange.
If you still believe you can prevent your fans enjoying their cultural liberty by remixing or sharing copies of your published work, or you believe it is a good use of your time to spend the next few years campaigning for the creation of a tax to pay for that sharing, then there are other philosophies that might help you sleep more easily and withstand yourself in mirrors, e.g. when you sanction the bankrupting of families for having the temerity to share music, or make the Internet affordable only to those wealthy enough to pay the tax that exempts them from such persecution.
So, there is a philosophy if you want one. However, that’s not the issue. The issue is how artists and their fans can do business without the unethical and ineffective weapon of copyright. An ethical philosophy simply helps one more easily arrive at ethical solutions, ethical business models.
The artist has art, wants money. The fans have money, want art. What you’re looking for here is agreement, not compulsion. A voluntary exchange, no threats, no coercion, no taxation.
There are already artists stumbling across such more humane ways of doing business. a2f2a can help cast light upon them, to draw ever more artists to more ethical ways of doing business with their fans, to help them steer clear of the rocks (the ever present temptation to threaten use of their copyright).
This is why it’s so crazy to say no progress can occur unless everyone agrees that an Internet tax is the right solution, that no incumbent artists will even think about supporting a2f2a as a lighthouse to new artists unless it adopts as its primary tenet “All artists deserve to be paid from an Internet tax! (especially us oldsters)”, or variations such as “Where money is made by ISPs selling bandwidth to sharers of our music files, we must be paid (oh, and new artists too)”.
Crazy, but not too surprising.
Progress will happen. The choice is whether to shift paradigm and be part of it, or support the establishment trying to hold it back. Copyright will become more draconian. Artists will learn to do business without it. Both these things will happen. The choice is whether to cleave to the cruel methods of history, facilitate a friendly and financially viable future with one’s fans, or do nothing but beg for a bailout tax.
January 25th, 2010 at 10:05 pm
” then there are other philosophies that might help you sleep more easily and withstand yourself in mirrors, e.g. when you sanction the bankrupting of families for having the temerity to share music, or make the Internet affordable only to those wealthy enough to pay the tax that exempts them from such persecution. ”
She’s already said she’s ok with 2 mil from Jammie, since she was such an ‘obvious infringer’. Conscience is not something she seems to suffer from.
This thread …
http://a2f2a.com/2010/01/05/its-time-for-us-to-agree/#comments
Comments 101 – 106.
It’s important for any fans of hers to understand just how on-board she is with the RIAA folk.
January 26th, 2010 at 6:02 pm
@bill, Dreddsnik, robert, etc. I haven’t been talking in terms of copyright. I have been speaking in terms of the deals that songwriters & producers do when they give an artist their ‘right of first release’ (e.g.: when a songwriter pitches a song to an artist). When it comes to the RIAA, they are corporate entities and they made their decision to sue people. I don’t have anything to do with that and I never suggested that I endorsed that either. Here is what I said in the thread: http://a2f2a.com/2010/01/05/its-time-for-us-to-agree/#comment-1643 and this is how I answered Dreddsnik RIAA comment: http://a2f2a.com/2010/01/05/its-time-for-us-to-agree/#comment-1767
@Dreddsnik: and here where I say “Eventually the RIAA will have to stop being stupid” http://a2f2a.com/2010/01/05/its-time-for-us-to-agree/#comment-1773 I DID NOT say ‘yes, it’s ok to sue people for outrageous amounts of money.
Again, Bennett’s proposal isn’t about a ‘tax’. But, obviously you guys enjoy continually talking about ‘taxes’.
In this thread, I was talking about songwriter’s and their royalties. The RIAA don’t have anything to do with songwriter royalties do they? Aren’t they supposed to be the “Recording Industry”. Songwriter’s are the people who write the songs. They compose the music. It’s the artists, bands and their investors or ‘labels’ who record the songs. Usually, when you do a song for an artist, you do it based upon a percentage (of sales… called a ‘royalty’ and also for a royalty when it’s used commercially like in sync deals for television, etc.) This doesn’t have anything to do with the RIAA. This has to do with the fact that some writers allow societies to collect for them (because the process is time consuming if you try to do it yourself) or they go through a publisher who administers your catalogue for you and helps you get more sync. deals, etc.)
But, aside from that, I was stating that if a songwriter does a direct deal with an artist, it would probably be more practicle for them to simply negotiate a percentage rather than trying to make artists pay them upfront simply because most artists wouldn’t be able to afford to ‘buy’ songs and it would put a songwriter in an awkward position. For example, if I write a tune for an artist who I think has an amazing voice but, I know that he/she doesn’t have much money, I wouldn’t want to ask them to pay for it up front. I would tell him/her to try the song out and do a percentage deal just because that seems more fair (IMO)
January 26th, 2010 at 6:57 pm
@Bill (75) Yes, that’s what I was meaning. I think that it’s more fair for both the artist and the songwriter to do a deal between them based on a percentage because it’s so speculative. It’s a little more like an investment from the songwriter in a way. Generally, songwriters write loads of songs between each one that they give a ‘home’ to. (Kind of like how real estate agents show hundreds of houses in between getting a ’sale’.) But, personally, I think putting a price on a song isn’t very easy to do because you don’t know how well the song is going to work out for the artist. (Ideally, all artists would write their own tunes, but, we know this isn’t always the case.)