(From Daily Express Saturday July 19,2008 pg. 15 by Gavin Docherty)
A TOP singer-songwriter has been the target of an internet hate campaign over illegal downloads of her new album.
Glasgow-based Indiana Gregg, whose husband and manager is the former Wet Wet Wet supremo, Ian Morrow, has been deluged by malicious mail in a wave of "cyber-bullying" by operators of The Pirate Bay and thousands of their supporters, who have been file-sharing her music for free.
And it all started because Indiana, pictured, politely asked that they remove a link to a download of her impressive debut album Woman at Work.
She and Ian were forced to act after they discovered that more than 250,000 illegal downloaders had leeched copies of the full album which was released to strong critical acclaim last year.
By writing to sites demanding that links be removed on the grounds of copyright, they had begun to stem the haemorrhage which has threatened to bankrupt their independent record label Gr8pop.
Nearly every site around the world they wrote to either blocked the link to the album or took it down, but The Pirate Bay torrent site reacted aggressively. Not only by refusing the request but also by publishing Indiana's e-mail address all over the web. This resulted in a stream of insults too offensive to be repeated in a family newspaper.
Verbal abuse is something this straight-talking vocalist from the American mid-west can handle. But the grave financial injury caused by the illegal downloading of her album is a different matter.
"I see my livelihood being sucked away every day through fild-sharing, which is allowing copyright material to flow in and out," she said. "All they have to do is claim it's the 'user's' responsibility to make sure the content being shared is not copyright-protected material. "I'm the artist who put my heart and soul, time and sweat into an album and raised money to market that album and who hasn't received a dime... not one cent from illegal downloads totalling at least a quarter of a million."
Husband Ian, who has sat on cross-parliamentary commitees in Scotland, resolved to regenerating music and culture, has referred much of the correspondence to First Minister Alex Salmond.
But he knows full well the issue of resolving illegal music downloads is a global one, requiring policing of the web and the introduction of internet 'passports'.
He added: "Pirate sites are destroying the music industry, taking away any chance a developing artist has of fulfilling any aspirations whatsoever.
(full jpg on my myspace blog at www.myspace.com/indianagregg)
Thursday, July 24, 2008
Well, I guess I'm a fortune-teller? The Government is Closing in.
This is basically what I was trying to tell you about. This is why I wrote my response to the Pirate Bay. This is what I was explaining in my blog about "History, Government, Economics, and file-sharing". I have a feeling that this is only the beginning. The next step will be in the form of fines or extra payments made to ISPs (a type of levy for downloading). Here's a peep below at what is really happening. Like I said, I could've been wrong about it, but, I left you with the question: What if I'm right?
You don't need to shoot the messenger, it was a pretty easy prophecy to make (about ISPs), yet,
a couple of weeks ago, a lot of people were calling me a liar for having my opinion about what I perceived to be happening. Well, here it is, now, right in front of you.
Sure, pirate sites can put their servers anywhere they want to in the world. Of course they can. But, the reality is the following article:
==================================================================================
Net firms in music pirates deal
Headphones
Customers who illegally share music will get warning letters
Six of the UK's biggest net providers have agreed a plan with the music industry to tackle piracy online.
The deal, negotiated by the government, will see hundreds of thousands of letters sent to net users suspected of illegally sharing music.
Hard core file-sharers could see their broadband connections slowed, under measures proposed by the UK government.
BT, Virgin, Orange, Tiscali, BSkyB and Carphone Warehouse have all signed up.
Geoff Taylor, chief executive of the BPI, which represents the music industry, said: "All of the major ISPs in the UK now recognise they have a responsibility to deal with illegal file-sharers on their networks."
Mr Taylor said it had taken years to persuade ISPs to adopt this view.
So far, the ISPs seem to be grabbing the carrot - while avoiding the stick
BBC Technology Correspondent Rory Cellan-Jones
Read more on Dot.Life
The plan commits the firms to working towards a "significant reduction" in the illegal sharing of music.
It also commits the net firms to develop legal music services. "Conversations are ongoing between record labels and ISPs," said Mr Taylor.
Letters to pirates
The BPI has focused on educational efforts and limited legal action in recent years, in contrast to the US, which has embarked on tens of thousands of lawsuits against alleged file sharers.
The six internet service providers have signed a Memorandum of Understanding drawn up by the Department for Business, Enterprise & Regulatory Reform (BERR).
HAVE YOUR SAY
Why should I yet again pay for, say, the Beatles' White Album at full whack? I already bought it on LP, eight-track, cassette, and CD! This is those customers getting their own back
Mark, Hampshire
Send us your comments
The Motion Picture Association of America has also signed up.
The BPI said the memoranum covered consumers who were both uploading and downloading music.
Mr Taylor said: "The focus is on people sharing files illegally; there is not an acceptable level of file-sharing. Musicians need to be paid like everyone else."
He added: "File-sharing (of copyright tracks without permission) is not anonymous, it is not secret, it is against the law."
At the same time the government has started a consultation exercise that could result in laws that force net firms to tackle music piracy. A working group will be set up under the auspices of regulator Ofcom to look at effective measures to tackle persistant file-sharers.
Mr Taylor said newspaper reports stating that online users could be subject to an annual levy to cover losses from file-sharing were incorrect.
"A levy is not an issue under discussion. It has not been discussed between us and government and as far as we are aware it is not on the table."
He said: "There should be effective mechanisms in place (to deter file-sharing) and as long as they are effective, we don't mind what they are."
The consultation document proposed that hard core file-sharers could have technical measures imposed, such as "traffic management or filtering and marking of legitimate content to facilitate identification".
In the past few weeks net firms Virgin and BT have sent letters to some customers identified by the BPI, which represents the UK record industry, as persistent music pirates.
'Long process'
Before now the BPI has called for a "three-strikes" system which would see net connections of persistent pirates terminated if three warnings went ignored.
Many net firms have resisted the call from the BPI and have said it is not their job to act as policemen.
FROM THE TODAY PROGRAMME
More from Today programme
Feargal Sharkey, chief executive of British Music Rights, said the plan was "a first step, and a very big step, in what we all acknowledge is going to be quite a long process".
Mr Sharkey, formerly lead singer with The Undertones added: "Government, particularly in the UK, has now realised there is an issue, there is a problem there."
One BBC News website user Mark, from Hampshire, said he downloaded and shared files illegally and argued customers were "getting their own back".
In an e-mail, he said: "I used to run half a dozen record shops in the 80s and saw how far the fat cats of the record industry would go, in milking customers and retailers dry with more hyped rubbish."
"Why should I yet again pay for, say, the Beatles' White Album at full whack? I already bought it on LP, eight-track, cassette, and CD! This is those customers getting their own back."
"So will this make me sharing a CD with my next-door neighbour over the fence illegal?" he added.
You don't need to shoot the messenger, it was a pretty easy prophecy to make (about ISPs), yet,
a couple of weeks ago, a lot of people were calling me a liar for having my opinion about what I perceived to be happening. Well, here it is, now, right in front of you.
Sure, pirate sites can put their servers anywhere they want to in the world. Of course they can. But, the reality is the following article:
==================================================================================
Net firms in music pirates deal
Headphones
Customers who illegally share music will get warning letters
Six of the UK's biggest net providers have agreed a plan with the music industry to tackle piracy online.
The deal, negotiated by the government, will see hundreds of thousands of letters sent to net users suspected of illegally sharing music.
Hard core file-sharers could see their broadband connections slowed, under measures proposed by the UK government.
BT, Virgin, Orange, Tiscali, BSkyB and Carphone Warehouse have all signed up.
Geoff Taylor, chief executive of the BPI, which represents the music industry, said: "All of the major ISPs in the UK now recognise they have a responsibility to deal with illegal file-sharers on their networks."
Mr Taylor said it had taken years to persuade ISPs to adopt this view.
So far, the ISPs seem to be grabbing the carrot - while avoiding the stick
BBC Technology Correspondent Rory Cellan-Jones
Read more on Dot.Life
The plan commits the firms to working towards a "significant reduction" in the illegal sharing of music.
It also commits the net firms to develop legal music services. "Conversations are ongoing between record labels and ISPs," said Mr Taylor.
Letters to pirates
The BPI has focused on educational efforts and limited legal action in recent years, in contrast to the US, which has embarked on tens of thousands of lawsuits against alleged file sharers.
The six internet service providers have signed a Memorandum of Understanding drawn up by the Department for Business, Enterprise & Regulatory Reform (BERR).
HAVE YOUR SAY
Why should I yet again pay for, say, the Beatles' White Album at full whack? I already bought it on LP, eight-track, cassette, and CD! This is those customers getting their own back
Mark, Hampshire
Send us your comments
The Motion Picture Association of America has also signed up.
The BPI said the memoranum covered consumers who were both uploading and downloading music.
Mr Taylor said: "The focus is on people sharing files illegally; there is not an acceptable level of file-sharing. Musicians need to be paid like everyone else."
He added: "File-sharing (of copyright tracks without permission) is not anonymous, it is not secret, it is against the law."
At the same time the government has started a consultation exercise that could result in laws that force net firms to tackle music piracy. A working group will be set up under the auspices of regulator Ofcom to look at effective measures to tackle persistant file-sharers.
Mr Taylor said newspaper reports stating that online users could be subject to an annual levy to cover losses from file-sharing were incorrect.
"A levy is not an issue under discussion. It has not been discussed between us and government and as far as we are aware it is not on the table."
He said: "There should be effective mechanisms in place (to deter file-sharing) and as long as they are effective, we don't mind what they are."
The consultation document proposed that hard core file-sharers could have technical measures imposed, such as "traffic management or filtering and marking of legitimate content to facilitate identification".
In the past few weeks net firms Virgin and BT have sent letters to some customers identified by the BPI, which represents the UK record industry, as persistent music pirates.
'Long process'
Before now the BPI has called for a "three-strikes" system which would see net connections of persistent pirates terminated if three warnings went ignored.
Many net firms have resisted the call from the BPI and have said it is not their job to act as policemen.
FROM THE TODAY PROGRAMME
More from Today programme
Feargal Sharkey, chief executive of British Music Rights, said the plan was "a first step, and a very big step, in what we all acknowledge is going to be quite a long process".
Mr Sharkey, formerly lead singer with The Undertones added: "Government, particularly in the UK, has now realised there is an issue, there is a problem there."
One BBC News website user Mark, from Hampshire, said he downloaded and shared files illegally and argued customers were "getting their own back".
In an e-mail, he said: "I used to run half a dozen record shops in the 80s and saw how far the fat cats of the record industry would go, in milking customers and retailers dry with more hyped rubbish."
"Why should I yet again pay for, say, the Beatles' White Album at full whack? I already bought it on LP, eight-track, cassette, and CD! This is those customers getting their own back."
"So will this make me sharing a CD with my next-door neighbour over the fence illegal?" he added.
Thursday, July 17, 2008
File-sharing on steroids....
Well, just in case my last blog made you aware of what the governments are thinking about file-sharing... on a bigger (and more scary scale), you'll want to check out this video:
hope you're having a great week guys:) (Don't do the chip!)
x
indiana
hope you're having a great week guys:) (Don't do the chip!)
x
indiana
Sunday, July 13, 2008
The Pirates call me a money Grabbing Whore! I dare say!
History, economics, government...and file-sharing:
Recently, I've received several hundred emails from a lot of angry people concerning a blog that I wrote that a site called "Torrent Freak" requested permission to republish. The messages I've received mostly go somewhat like this:
"Dear Money Grabbing Blond bitch whore with sand in your vagina,
Stupid blond, you have no idea how the internet works.
The internet police will never be able to regulate something as popular as file-sharing. Do you really think that the government cares about a college student downloading files illegally when they have more important things to do like catching criminals?…I hate you and hope bad things happen to you because I don't like your opinion"
Love,
Anonymous person"
Well, my answer is "yes", I believe government is very interested. Basically, this whole file-sharing thing doesn't have anything to do with Big Labels or artists wielding hefty lawsuits at their fans (which is crazy) because this whole p2p story has already shifted to government. That's why I mentioned 'fines' rather than lawsuits in my original blog. To be honest, I didn't threaten to sue the Pirate Bay (they just felt like putting the emails in their legal threats section and then wrote a big article about it in an effort to 'humiliate' as they try to do to anyone who doesn't agree with them.)
You see, this is certainly not about me or my music at all. The reason why I've written to all the torrent sites is because I think that government is planning to fine people for file-sharing and I don't want any of my fans (or potential fans) to be fined because they downloaded an Indiana Gregg album. My reasons have to do with ethics and how I feel about my fans. In fact, it never had anything to do with me at all. But most of it does have everything to do with 'YOU', the file-sharer. The reality is that it's now been placed in the hands of the governments. The G8 met last week. A lot of things have been happening. In fact, the governments have been watching and waiting. I'll explain.
First of all, let me just say that I think that the idea of music being 'free' is fantastic. I'm also not against file-sharing at all (the concept of it is great, but, again, the creators of the content being shared need to be compensated). I've never sued anybody in my life and I'm not about to start suing people now, especially not my fans! This is simply an open debate and the Pirate Bay chose to start a debate with me. So, I answered them in my personal blog. I don't need any legal advice for this. We all know that debate brings us together and usually brings about some solutions. Anyway, here's my theory spelled out in terms of "history, government, and simple economics".
YOUR QUESTIONS:
So, how can something as popular as file-sharing be interesting for governments to get involved in? and Where will they get the 'resources' to regulate it?… The answer is, they will get the resources from "YOU". Here's what I believe they are planning.
Does anybody remember the Model-T Ford and the assembly line Ford created? Since then, how popular has the automobile become? How many government jobs did it create? And where did the 'resources' come from? Well, let's think about it. Here's a short list:
Fuel exports and imports
Taxes on Fuel
The rising cost of commodities due to a tax on fuel
Parking tickets
Speeding tickets
Drunk driving fines
Licenses, license plates, etc. (this list could go on forever)
How much money have governments been able to generate by that little assembly line that popularised the automobile? And where did they (government) get the money?
(hint: the government got the money/resources from YOU and I. That's right. The tax payers and the 'fine' payers.)
So, how many government jobs do you think they could they create with the internet? Be honest with yourself. How many cars are there in the world and how many computers are in the world? Well, you tell me. Are there more cars than computers?
The problem p2p is facing has to do with history, government and economics. Since we've all heard how history repeats itself, why don't we now take a look at the internet as an example.
In the timeframe between the moment Torrent Freak asked me if they could re-post my blog and the present, there have been several other news releases. Not just the G8 summit and their plans to crack down on piracy, but, also the result of the Viacom/ Youtube lawsuit, letters from Virgin and the BPI to their users, the "3 strikes and your out " debate in France and Canada (and the list goes on). What do I know about the future? Well, the following prophecy I'm about to make seems as clear as day.
I've been watching this internet debate unravel for many years now and let's face it, from an outsider's point of view (mine), I can see how it would be pretty easy for government to step in and regulate. Remember, the 'internet' started out as a bunch of servers on US military bases and University campuses. In fact, regulating the internet is almost as easy as reducing art and music to "0's" and "1's" and duplicating files. In fact, the government doesn't even need to invest or find resources for this one. Why? Because they have "YOU". The government plans to fine you in the same way they did with parking fines and the automobile… only now, it will cost them less money because the internet is, (simply put), made up of a bunch of numbers. In this case, your IP address is making it a cake-walk for them. (Sure, you can encrypt it. But, most encryptions can also be decrypted. And yes, an IP address can be stolen. How do you think hackers break into security systems on the net? But, that's another kettle of fish, so, for now, let's talk about one person: you.)
Basically, how can government regulate file-sharing? The answer is simple: They will be able to do it the same way they've done it throughout history. As the economy continues to shift towards telecommunications and internet-based business, don't you think government is likely to move there too? You may argue "they simply don't have the resources"… You see, this isn't about artists and labels suing their fans. (That's just silly.) Nobody is going to sue you. Rather, the government plans to 'warn' you about something that you are doing that is presently illegal (ie: copyright infringement via file-sharing) and then, they plan to slap a little fine on every file-sharer and force the ISP's to turn over your IP address when you break the law. (IP address: well, it's kind of the new Internet Passport… yes, stupid blond here does know that IP stands for Internet Protocol in this instance). Ok, they've already begun with the "three strikes rule" (which is ridiculous.) It's like giving somebody a life sentence for committing a few traffic violations. Nonsensical. I don't see how that one will work in the long-run either. However, what I do see is government easily using you, the file-sharer, as a resource and meanwhile creating a whole new crew of internet police.
Listen, I'm just the messenger here. I've just given you some insight into where I see this heading and why. Do I think it's fair? Well, of course not. I said that at the beginning. Do I think music should be free? Sure I do, I think it's a great idea. However, I think that creators should be able to at least make enough money to reinvest into their art. I also think that it's unfair for a website or torrent search engine to fool their users by making statements about how their site is 'legal' in in their country (but, not necessarily telling you that file-sharing of copyright material is still 'illegal' even in Sweden and in most of the world). I think they must know what the government is planning. We'd all be blind not to see this probability/possibility?
Will they pity you once government kicks in with their plan? Probably not, that's why I'm asking these sites to take links to my music down. I don't want my fans (or potential ones) to be fined for sharing my music. So, by asking the torrents to take down a link, I'm hoping that my fans will find my music for free on sites that are legal and free. You see, I like my fans a lot and I don't want them to be fined. Every single one of my fans are important to me.
Am I telling you the truth? Well, this is just a theory at the moment. So, what if I'm wrong? Well, I could very well be wrong about this…. But, what if I'm right?
Recently, I've received several hundred emails from a lot of angry people concerning a blog that I wrote that a site called "Torrent Freak" requested permission to republish. The messages I've received mostly go somewhat like this:
"Dear Money Grabbing Blond bitch whore with sand in your vagina,
Stupid blond, you have no idea how the internet works.
The internet police will never be able to regulate something as popular as file-sharing. Do you really think that the government cares about a college student downloading files illegally when they have more important things to do like catching criminals?…I hate you and hope bad things happen to you because I don't like your opinion"
Love,
Anonymous person"
Well, my answer is "yes", I believe government is very interested. Basically, this whole file-sharing thing doesn't have anything to do with Big Labels or artists wielding hefty lawsuits at their fans (which is crazy) because this whole p2p story has already shifted to government. That's why I mentioned 'fines' rather than lawsuits in my original blog. To be honest, I didn't threaten to sue the Pirate Bay (they just felt like putting the emails in their legal threats section and then wrote a big article about it in an effort to 'humiliate' as they try to do to anyone who doesn't agree with them.)
You see, this is certainly not about me or my music at all. The reason why I've written to all the torrent sites is because I think that government is planning to fine people for file-sharing and I don't want any of my fans (or potential fans) to be fined because they downloaded an Indiana Gregg album. My reasons have to do with ethics and how I feel about my fans. In fact, it never had anything to do with me at all. But most of it does have everything to do with 'YOU', the file-sharer. The reality is that it's now been placed in the hands of the governments. The G8 met last week. A lot of things have been happening. In fact, the governments have been watching and waiting. I'll explain.
First of all, let me just say that I think that the idea of music being 'free' is fantastic. I'm also not against file-sharing at all (the concept of it is great, but, again, the creators of the content being shared need to be compensated). I've never sued anybody in my life and I'm not about to start suing people now, especially not my fans! This is simply an open debate and the Pirate Bay chose to start a debate with me. So, I answered them in my personal blog. I don't need any legal advice for this. We all know that debate brings us together and usually brings about some solutions. Anyway, here's my theory spelled out in terms of "history, government, and simple economics".
YOUR QUESTIONS:
So, how can something as popular as file-sharing be interesting for governments to get involved in? and Where will they get the 'resources' to regulate it?… The answer is, they will get the resources from "YOU". Here's what I believe they are planning.
Does anybody remember the Model-T Ford and the assembly line Ford created? Since then, how popular has the automobile become? How many government jobs did it create? And where did the 'resources' come from? Well, let's think about it. Here's a short list:
Fuel exports and imports
Taxes on Fuel
The rising cost of commodities due to a tax on fuel
Parking tickets
Speeding tickets
Drunk driving fines
Licenses, license plates, etc. (this list could go on forever)
How much money have governments been able to generate by that little assembly line that popularised the automobile? And where did they (government) get the money?
(hint: the government got the money/resources from YOU and I. That's right. The tax payers and the 'fine' payers.)
So, how many government jobs do you think they could they create with the internet? Be honest with yourself. How many cars are there in the world and how many computers are in the world? Well, you tell me. Are there more cars than computers?
The problem p2p is facing has to do with history, government and economics. Since we've all heard how history repeats itself, why don't we now take a look at the internet as an example.
In the timeframe between the moment Torrent Freak asked me if they could re-post my blog and the present, there have been several other news releases. Not just the G8 summit and their plans to crack down on piracy, but, also the result of the Viacom/ Youtube lawsuit, letters from Virgin and the BPI to their users, the "3 strikes and your out " debate in France and Canada (and the list goes on). What do I know about the future? Well, the following prophecy I'm about to make seems as clear as day.
I've been watching this internet debate unravel for many years now and let's face it, from an outsider's point of view (mine), I can see how it would be pretty easy for government to step in and regulate. Remember, the 'internet' started out as a bunch of servers on US military bases and University campuses. In fact, regulating the internet is almost as easy as reducing art and music to "0's" and "1's" and duplicating files. In fact, the government doesn't even need to invest or find resources for this one. Why? Because they have "YOU". The government plans to fine you in the same way they did with parking fines and the automobile… only now, it will cost them less money because the internet is, (simply put), made up of a bunch of numbers. In this case, your IP address is making it a cake-walk for them. (Sure, you can encrypt it. But, most encryptions can also be decrypted. And yes, an IP address can be stolen. How do you think hackers break into security systems on the net? But, that's another kettle of fish, so, for now, let's talk about one person: you.)
Basically, how can government regulate file-sharing? The answer is simple: They will be able to do it the same way they've done it throughout history. As the economy continues to shift towards telecommunications and internet-based business, don't you think government is likely to move there too? You may argue "they simply don't have the resources"… You see, this isn't about artists and labels suing their fans. (That's just silly.) Nobody is going to sue you. Rather, the government plans to 'warn' you about something that you are doing that is presently illegal (ie: copyright infringement via file-sharing) and then, they plan to slap a little fine on every file-sharer and force the ISP's to turn over your IP address when you break the law. (IP address: well, it's kind of the new Internet Passport… yes, stupid blond here does know that IP stands for Internet Protocol in this instance). Ok, they've already begun with the "three strikes rule" (which is ridiculous.) It's like giving somebody a life sentence for committing a few traffic violations. Nonsensical. I don't see how that one will work in the long-run either. However, what I do see is government easily using you, the file-sharer, as a resource and meanwhile creating a whole new crew of internet police.
Listen, I'm just the messenger here. I've just given you some insight into where I see this heading and why. Do I think it's fair? Well, of course not. I said that at the beginning. Do I think music should be free? Sure I do, I think it's a great idea. However, I think that creators should be able to at least make enough money to reinvest into their art. I also think that it's unfair for a website or torrent search engine to fool their users by making statements about how their site is 'legal' in in their country (but, not necessarily telling you that file-sharing of copyright material is still 'illegal' even in Sweden and in most of the world). I think they must know what the government is planning. We'd all be blind not to see this probability/possibility?
Will they pity you once government kicks in with their plan? Probably not, that's why I'm asking these sites to take links to my music down. I don't want my fans (or potential ones) to be fined for sharing my music. So, by asking the torrents to take down a link, I'm hoping that my fans will find my music for free on sites that are legal and free. You see, I like my fans a lot and I don't want them to be fined. Every single one of my fans are important to me.
Am I telling you the truth? Well, this is just a theory at the moment. So, what if I'm wrong? Well, I could very well be wrong about this…. But, what if I'm right?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)