Three Strikes if passed will be a costly way of trying to ‘educate’ the public. (Some estimates of around £1million/day) Whether you agree with the following ideas or not, there will be great sums of ‘money’ involved in the implementation and enforcement such a ruling. Inevitably, costs the ISPs will incur with Three Strikes and the projected costs government plans to spend upon its enforcement will ultimately trickle down to the ISP customer and the taxpayer.
Since most ISP customers are also taxpayers, the public may end up paying twice. So, please, before ruling out the possibility of a two-pronged approach Public License + ISP levies, bear in mind the alternative. The Three Strikes + Law Suits route will be MUCH more costly, inefficient and at best, ineffective.
Background: The Music 2.0 World Currently:
At the moment (as in the past), the major music labels are licensing their catalogues to music services by territory. In the UK alone, the advances payable to the labels equate to roughly a million pounds once advances, legal fees and integration are paid in order to license the four major catalogues. Once the money has been transferred to the labels, the website can offer the music as a stream and/or downloads. If a site wants to allow downloads, the going rate paid to the labels is around 50p per download and around a penny per stream, which are accrued against the advances until the well dries up. (This does not include publishing royalties the site must pay subsequently which in the UK is approx 0.22p per stream or 8% of wholesale price 4p).
For a music service to offer music legitimately (paying the rights holders), the service needs to raise millions if it wants to play ball globally. In many cases, labels even ask for advances if a service proposes to simply ’sell’ their catalogue.
If a fan isn’t allowed to access content because it hasn’t been released in their country yet and a fan isn’t allowed to purchase it either due to territorial restrictions, P2P becomes the only way for a fan to access it. For artists, this scenario isn’t great because it means their music can only be legitimately accessed in certain territories. Basically, the three components artist/label, fan and services all three become ‘limited’ in what they can offer and what can be accessed with these kinds of territorial restrictions well before the argument of ‘free’ versus ‘paid for’ comes into the equation.
Prong One: Introducing A Public License
Imagine if every radio station paid labels an ‘advance’ before they were allowed to help ‘popularize’ their music with airplay. At the moment, record labels actually pay people to plug music to radio. They spend a fortune wining & dining Radio 2 programmers and producers. Here comes the Internet and suddenly, the major labels want ‘advances’ from internet ‘broadcasters’ (websites)? It’s crazy. They also want money up front if you plan to sell their music for them on-line. Likewise, record labels pay PR companies to get media coverage for their artists. Now, record companies want paid for the same type of promotion they used to pay people to do. So, what’s the sketch?
Could a public license for the use of music on the Internet perhaps benefit artists, songwriters and potentially all media? Since the nature of the web is indeed ‘global’, it seems necessary and ultimately inevitable a license be put into place to cover the ‘internet’ as a whole or as ‘one territory’ globally.
Because the major music labels control the majority of the music is being consumed, they are in a position to ask for whatever they want. This means ‘legitimate’ music services have absolutely no negotiation leverage, which in turn means many of these services will likely never be viable without some form of subscription model. So, here you have the ‘free P2P model’ versus ’subscription’ services.
Since most internauts can work under the guise of a proxy IP or VPN, cutting off access by territory is nonsensical. For this very reason alone, enforcing a Three Strikes policy isn’t only costly, but also technically impossible without an Internet re-design and a personal ID system (or Internet passport.) We could by-pass this type of negative legislation through a public license.
Business Viability for ‘Legal’ services:
These financial and territorial limitations have resulted in many legitimate services having to close their doors before ever truly getting off the ground. They face raising millions in capital in order to reach a global community in an extremely risky economic climate. Without some form of workable legislation and consideration by the copyright tribunal and/or government with regard to the use of music on the net, artists end up in a limbo situation making it difficult for them to earn a living or know where their fanbase is in order to
tour.
Some music services hope to legitimately pay artists; however, depending upon the type of deal the labels have with their artists, it’s uncertain ‘advances’ paid to the labels actually trickle down to the artists.
On top of the advances paid to the labels, the service must also obtain licenses from the publishing rights authorities in each territory (eg PRS/MCPS, Gema, Ascap, BMI, etc). Once again, these advances are against projected streams (or downloads) in order to cover the publishing aspects of the copyright
After a lot of hard work, red tape and legal fees for the sake of being a ‘legitimately’ recognized legal download and/or streaming service, current copyright legislation combined with demands of the major label advances are effectively limiting the possibilities for those artists to be heard and compensated. ( A public license would erase those limitations.)
Whether a service is considered legitimate or not, the result is the same for the ‘fan’ who obtains an mp3 either by stream or download. And in both cases, it’s noset certain whether the artists themselves benefit. Independent artists who are compensated directly by the legitimate services, however, do benefit via direct compensation because there is no middleman. How will Three Strikes legislation change any of this? (Answer: It won’t.)
In either situation, we all must agree an mp3 is the same whether it’s from a bit torrent client, itunes, or amazon.mp3. In simple terms, whether it’s on demand or not, streams or downloads, youtube, myspace or P2P, it’s all the same. Websites are broadcasters of media. When a site uses media to attract traffic whether we’re talking a search engine, a network, or even a blog, it’s essentially a broadcaster. Fans tune in and consume the media. Solution: Prong one = License Internet Broadcasters.
Public license = Legalization of P2P
Introducing Websites as Broadcasters
Rather than dividing the legitimate (’advance’ paying) services and the P2P services into two camps, we could initiate a public license, which could level the playing field. Here’s where a global compulsory (or public) license comes into play. (Global meaning: ‘for use on the net’)
The Internet needs a Compulsory public license for Music (and potentially all media). This would enable websites to calculate their margins and contributions. Rather than oppressing artistic culture by penalizing ‘fans’ of media, such a license would stimulate and compensate creators. Currently, the music industry is banking cash advances in exchange for a very limited number of legitimate services.
Why not create a public license for all media that covers everything across the board? Why not consider websites as broadcasters just like radio or television regardless of the type of service being provided. An mp3 is an mp3 whether streamed, downloaded, shared, copied, etc? Trying to differentiate one mp3 from another simply due to access format or the type of service being accessed is absurd. (Format meaning ‘on demand’, ’stream’, ‘download’, etc.)
Mandelson’s ‘3 strikes and the fan gets beheaded’ game plan is bound to be a costly endeavour which is impossible to enforce. Sending warning letters which supposedly will also help ‘educate’ people on how to protect their wireless connections sounds extremely naïve from a government who wants to be considered ‘innovative’. The plan reeks of negativity and is an extension of the RIAA’s previous lawsuits against its fanbase. Mandelson is shifting the focus to ISPs penalising customers. (Presumably this is meant to take the music industry off of the ‘hot seat’ for a while?)
A public license may mean the labels and societies will have to lose a bit of their copyright control, however, such a license would in return create a potential for creators to score on a massive and unprecedented scale regardless of whether the artist/band is independent or signed to a major. Widening the level of distribution and use and spreading the license to all forms of use on the net, a public license for websites as broadcasters could have a massive effect upon the flow of media.
All licensed sites would be deemed ‘legitimate’ and whether it’s P2P, a music service, or a social network, all would benefit and potentially become viable, and the P2P sites would no longer be considered ‘infringers’ this would allow them to boost their advertising revenues and increase profitability as the taboo of ‘illegal’ became lifted.
Theoretically, all services would contribute based upon the traffic and consumption of media flowing through their service. This can be monitored fairly easily. The license would obviously impose play counters for streams and downloads. (seeds, leeches, etc.) All music (globally) would be covered under the license regardless of status (major label, independent or unsigned.) However, sites would report to the license regulating bodies of their territory/ country. Artists and songwriters would register their music with the appropriate collection societies for their territory or opt for direct payment from the sites/services. At the moment, all deemed ‘legitimite’ sites are already subject to paying these collection societies anyway. The machinery dating back to the 1930’s for collection is already in place but the societies model needs an upgrade. This boils down to the copyright tribunal and competent government legislation.
***** Please be aware currently in the scenario where you’re the artist and you’re also the sole songwriter and are on your own label and you decide to give away 100,000 FREE downloads of YOUR song, written solely by you, on your label, the PRS in the UK and similarly abroad will require you to pay them approx 2.5p for each free download you wish to give away of your wholly owned copyright simply because you have asked them to collect royalties on your behalf.
In fact, as the owner, if you wish to give it away free and don’t wish them to collect anything on your behalf, you legally cannot. If you don’t pay them this amount to give your music away free, you (the artist/songwriter label) are breaking the law.
Now who is looking after whom? In reality, an artist is allowing their music to be available on a P2P site and not paying the societies for these ‘free’ downloads IS essentially breaking the law, just as much as the downloader is considered to be breaking the law.
The societies are much more intransigent than the major labels, which is overlooked by most, (a reality which is slowly becoming evident as more and more of them around the world try to force hairdressers, school cafeterias, bars, doctors and dentists, to pay monthly music licensing fees). Their existence in the digital world with archaic views and contracts based in the 1930’s (talkies, movies, etc) is WAY another discussion.
Tell me folks, when will they sue their first artist? Would Trent Reznor perhaps be the first candidate? Maybe start out soft and cut off his internet or something for allowing this gratuitous breech of archaic copyright? How ludicrous!? So, just like the ice men in Sweden had to stop cutting ice due to the ‘fridge’ as Peter Sunde (TPB) and Rick Falkvinge (Pirate Party Sweden) put it so eloquently, perhaps the societies might think about revisiting their business model just like every other internet business seems to be obligated to do these days on a ‘monthly’ basis.
The ISPs: The Second Prong
What are they really selling and what do you use Broadband for?
OK, check this out: http://www.broadband-finder.co.uk/broadband-information/broadband-usage-levels.html
Here it’s straight from the ISP horses mouth: ‘What do I get for 10GB? 20GB? 40GB?’
Answer: They tell you straight up in terms of music & film downloads exactly what you get.
For example: 40GB/ month gets you the following:
Hours spent browsing (per day) – 24 hours
Emails sent & received (per day) – 1500
Music downloads (per month) – 340 tracks
Video downloads (per month) – 9 hours
Software updates / downloads (per month) – 24 hours
Break it down. What’s the big one in this list? Are most people using their broadband to send and receive 1500 emails? How many GB is worth? Hang on here, but, you can download 340 tracks. (Of course, everyone is paying 99 cents /track on iTunes right? Ummm. NOT. )
So, isn’t it rather obvious? The second contributor to the compensation of music and media SHOULD be the ISPs themselves. You know, you’re paying for it anyway. That’s what they’ve sold you, right?
Now, this levy on the ISPs could (but not necessarily) inadvertently focus some of the responsibility onto the ‘fans’ want to ‘try before they buy’. But, realistically, how much would a levy on ISPs actually cost the users? In theory, a levy absolutely SHOULDN’T raise the price of your broadband at all. Why? Because they’ve been selling you service already! And this levy shouldn't be some kind of 'blanket' levy. In today's digital age, there is no reason why it couldn't be calculated on a per-use basis.
The ISPs and Telecoms are expanding rapidly even during a global recession. The telecoms generate huge revenues and turn over massive profits. We all pay for access.
Without question, a portion of their profits should be allocated to the media creators. What does broadband get you? What are they really selling us? (Answer: Media, Music, Film and access to the exchange of all kinds of information.)
However, strangely enough, the reason why the ISP levy idea isn’t being pushed forward and a Three Strikes is, could be the government is already trying to initiate a broadband tax to stuff somebody’s pockets: http://www.broadband-finder.co.uk/news/broadband/broadband-tax-is-unjust-and-regressive_19440993.html
A levy on the ISPs and mobile phone networks towards compensating creators would allow a passage of ‘free culture’ on the Internet whereby piracy and copyright infringement could become obsolete. Essentially,t his would mean P2P could exist without being ‘demonised’. In fact, it just might even thrive.
Simply put, a levy could come out of the ISP’s profits based upon the percentage of Internet traffic is used for the consumption of media content (music, film, software, press). Ofcom regulated of course since we have a situation where the ISPs are teaming up with the labels (the Virgin media and Universal deal for example).
Again, collection would need to be monitored and distribution of these funds would need to be handled by the collection societies and allocated based upon the consumption reports from all websites who contribute to the ‘public license’ described above in prong one in order to prevent ‘blanket’ licensing problems and the ‘black boxes’ of the past. In the digital world, accountability shouldn’t be a problem.
Since this would be a two-pronged approach (services and websites + ISPs contributing), theoretically some would argue this kind of levy should never raise the cost of broadband to the consumer. In theory, fixed costs are spread over more customers as the rate of broadband expands, so, prices could even fall and this kind of levy would have minimum impact. In fact, legislation like Three Strikes is more likely to raise costs than an ISP levy would. The governments, in fact, should put in measures to assure the public that this type of levy would not raise the price of their monthly payments. Why? Because the public is already paying for it in their current monthly subscriptions.
If every ISP has to comply with the levy, there would be just as much competition between services as there is now. This cost simply has to be factored in and if the levy is taken out of net profits, it’s not such a huge ordeal especially since the media industries are a huge force behind why people want bigger bandwidth. The ISPs need the thriving media industries. (Not everyone likes watching babies giggling on youtube.) Quality does still matter. Plus, it’s all about ‘the need for speed’. Let’s face it, you don’t really need broadband for email and blog reading folks. You need it to stream, download and access rich media. You can chat with friends without the need for high-speed internet. It’s rich media content sells broadband upgrades.
Feasibility Of The Two-Pronged Approach?
So you ask: Is a two-pronged system like this technically possible?
Of course it is. Each service (website) reports to its respective society by territory. Society reports usage data to the ISPs. Each ISP is regulated by territory. Globally, the license is the same across the board. Internauts access all media regardless of territory. Labels would be forced to treat the Internet as ‘one’ territory rather than dividing the net through the same physical territorial licensing practices of the past. Result? Free exchange of media and compensation of it's creators based upon 'USE'.
Would this kind of a system potentially help reduce the power of monopolies?
Yes, if regulated and constructed via a checks-and-balances system. Fans could still help artists by buying tickets to live gigs, buying merchandise, donating etc, but, the real power they would have would be to freely listen without being demonised by the recording and publishing industries. Artists and songwriters could potentially track their progress and cross-check the stats to make sure their isn’t a ‘black box’ scenario. This may require an open-accounting system, but, why not? It would render the application of traditional ‘copyright’ to the web as obsolete with exception of commercial use. Likewise, why not? Any Black-box money could be held in a fund for charities or the regeneration of media.
What role would government play? Perhaps putting measures together to ensure the system is regulated properly through subsidies and the implementation of these types of innovations. Rather than spending money penalizing file-sharers, they could be using resources to work with both new and established services during the transition. Subscription models would and could still be viable (after all, they existed during ‘piracy’ before, why would this change anything. If people like a premium service for the added perks, they are still likely pay for them.)
What P2P asks of artists in the current climate:
At the moment, the general consensus from P2P advocates is asking artists to be buskers, dependent upon a donation button when their music is being ‘used’ all over the web whether it’s via P2P or any social network or website.
Many P2P users expect bands and artists to produce recordings for free use. They ask artists furthermore to raise the money to tour and gig (without tour support because their music was free) and consequently ask them to base their entire livelihood upon T-shirts and merchandise. All this in the name of ‘try before you buy’.
Nobody needs to waste another breathe on whether a download would equal a ‘lost’ sale or not. It doesn’t matter whether you’re talking about a stream or a download; they are both the SAME thing. Neither one has any value until the music being accessed is ‘heard’ or ‘used’. Once you access music, you’re a consumer. ‘Try before you buy’ is senseless. You hear it, you’ve used it. (Same with film: You don’t need to ‘try’ the film first. Once you’ve seen it, that’s it. It’s done.) ‘USE’ is the key word here. Media is like gas or electricity. You don’t tell the gas board you plan to try out their service beforehand. The moment you’re listening, you’re consuming.
How is an artist expected to break-even when potentially thousands or even millions of people have ‘used’ their music. Likewise, asking them to sell CD’s at gigs won’t be an option for much longer. Who needs more plastic when you have a 80GB hard drive stores zillions of songs? Young bands won’t want to deal with the manufacturing cost when it’s unlikely they will make a return on them since transferring the data onto a computer to eventually get the music onto your ipod is such a pain. The truth be told, if the goal of being a musician is being pushed towards how many t-shirts you can sell in order to finance your next gig, what’s the point? It already takes years for most artists to get a ‘break’. Now, once they do, they’re expected to beg and sell more t-shirts after they’ve toured, promoted, raised marketing investment, gotten radio play, press, and generated loads of illegitimate downloads? The message this sends: ‘ Raise capital and create a T-shirt factory and busk the underground and city parks on the weekends.’
It’s likewise unfair to expect songwriters (who in many cases aren’t performing artists) to live off of fresh air. Some of the most talented vocalists in the world simply have no talent for writing songs. Likewise, some of the best songwriters aren’t vocalists or performers. Non-performing Songwriters are rarely mentioned in any of the arguments have been put forward in this debate oddly enough. Where does the land lie for them in the current situation? Not to mention Session players will no longer have session work because there would be no money to finance recordings use session players. So, in this new age of digital, are we going to simply forget about hiring live orchestras to play on recordings because they’re too expensive?
Leaving P2P to stand as it is without some form of license or compromise is a non-starter. Strangely enough, the current proposals by government in the form of Three Strikes won’t help any of these scenarios either. A public license alongside a levy on ISPs would. It’s a question of moving the money that would be spent on Three Strikes towards something actually could help the parties involved. A license and levy would be more proactive whereas Three Strikes is clearly destructive and involves money being spent frivolously with potentially little or no effectiveness generated.
Conclusion:
A public license combined with a levy on the ISPs could create an eco-system whereby artists and fans could have their cake and eat it too. It could also create a more viable system for music services, P2P and even record labels or ‘investors’ in music and media.
The current situation simply does not work for anybody and a Three Strikes motion is likely to create more bitterness between fans of music and the creative industries.
A public license could help solve the ‘Rubiks cube’- as I call it. Because there are at least 6-sides to this -and that’s before you get to the whole ‘live side’-
You have:
1)performing artists and songwriters
2)societies who collect on the behalf of the performers and/or songwriters
3) labels and/or investors
4)ISPs and Telecoms
5)Websites & Broadcasters
6)session musicians, Producers/engineers/studios
The primary focus of the ‘cube’ and their very existense being ‘the fans’ or ‘the consumers’.
So, please, before you decide to blindly pretend P2P is currently leveling the playing field, try to take a look at the ‘rubiks cube’ from all sides.
Solving this requires having an understanding of each side,
If we’re unable to come up with an organized, fair and logical alternative to what governments are currently proposing, we’ll inevitably remain in a position where governments jump in and things like Three Strikes are put into motion, opening up a can of worms which will ultimately lead to more more agressive legislation.
Wednesday, November 18, 2009
Thursday, September 24, 2009
Solutions For Copyright, P2p and Civil Liberties Issues
Solving problems with copyright, P2p and Civil Liberties issues:
The 'angry mob' has been at it again. Lily Allen has declared that she's not planning to make another record and erased her anti-piracy blog due to abuse from the web community. It's a shame that artists who take a stand are subject to name calling and an onslaught of liable damage on the internet just for forming an opinion. Albeit, an opinion that many don't agree with. To be honest, I don't see how trying to tear someone apart and rip them to shreds is productive for p2p. In my opinion, it only hurts your position. And right now isn't very good timing for the file-sharing movement to be looking like a bunch of bullying twats, is it? (oops, see, I've just called the 'bullies' bullying twats! incredible! How hypocritical...'sarcasm intended'... I am. lol)
The thing that bothers me most about all this egg throwing, is that these people who do the name-calling are the same ones who hide behind anonymous identities. They generally are not people who have a public image and I doubt they would actually say some of the things that they say if they were to meet you in person. In fact, all those people leaving nasty comments are more or less cowards who enjoy complaining but rarely take any form of positive action. Nobody's truly interested except for the other sad people who enjoy being destructive. Theoretically, these types of people who waste their time degrading others on the net are same type of people who are proud of their ASBOs. In general, destructive people are a waste of time. And believe it or not, this 'anonymity' on the web will likely disappear in the future. Remember, the net was created by military and was never designed for the public domain. We've known for quite some time that the net is due a redesign. (But, that's another issue concerning the future and ways to deal with your internet passports.)
How many of these web complainers have written to their MP or Senator about their stance on copyright or their stance on P2p? Many have plenty of time to comment, but, how many have actually done at least the bare minimum like sign a petition? Did any of them write to Mandelson? I know I have. I've written to nearly every influential person I can think of for the past few years with what I believe could represent possible solutions. Remember Lawrence Lessig's book "Free Culture".
“A free culture is not a culture without property; it is not a culture in which artists don't get paid. A culture without property, or in which creators can't get paid, is anarchy, not freedom.”-Lessig
He also states: “I believe that "piracy" is wrong, and that the law, properly tuned, should punish "piracy," whether on or off the Internet. But those simple beliefs mask a much more fundamental question and a much more dramatic change. My fear is that unless we come to see this change, the war to rid the world of Internet "pirates" will also rid our culture of values that have been integral to our tradition from the start.”
We mostly all agree that governments & Isp's taking internet access away from their customers is a complete non-starter. Maybe if Lily had a little more time to think about it, she would realise that as well. Not that I could predict the future last year, but, didn't you also see it coming? The 'internet police' plotting to take away your Internet passports (access via your IP, etc.) They are here now. Have you not heard? They want to block you from the internet and in some cases even fine you or whatever. That's what is on the agenda. I told you last year that I don't think it's right, but, they are attempting to do it in the name of 'protection'. They'll find any excuse. In this instance, it's protection of copyright. Now, everyone got really pissed off at me last year when I pointed this out and asked TPB 'why don't you start 'sharing' with the creators. The real problem is that in this past year, you've done nothing to develop or propose a viable solution. The Pirate Party has taken one extreme by saying creators don't have a right to earn from their works (please see Rick Falkvinge's statements as head of the Pirate Party in Sweden as per BBC interview Sun. Sept. 11th, 10am on Scottish BBC and twitter, and youtube videos from my last blog) and the RIAA keeps suing people. It's a joke. Most of you sit somewhere in the middle, make comments, and sit with a bag of crisps next to your PC's typing to the sound of your keyboard revelling at how cutting you can be when someone threatens peer-to-peer.
It's really down to a couple or maybe three rather obvious solutions. Nobody needs to get rid of piracy, it simply needs to be legalised in such a way that it's no longer piracy. There are some obvious solutions that would require participation from all media on the web, all websites who host, track, or deliver media, the ISPs, the government and YOU.
Below are some solutions that I've suggested before in a previous blog. If you have a moment, have a look at the petition. If you agree with it, sign it. The only way that you will be able to avoid these newly proposed laws that could potentially infringe on civil liberties is to come up with a plan that makes sense to law makers. You start out with a proposal that offers a solution to a problem that we all want solved.
Potential Solutions:
Here’s the real deal, if we don’t try to come to a compromise that suits everyone, government is going to march in and that’ll be the end of it. It’s time to start seriously thinking about this and take some action otherwise; it’s your own fault. It’s like Lily says, “It’s not me, It’s you”. It shouldn’t be just artists who stand up and make points, not just p2p users complaining about or praising artists opinions, and not just media giants who get their foot in the door pressuring governments. It’s YOU. Sweden gave us Abba and now we’ve got The Pirate Party. But, what has a mediocre and apathetic majority given us? Why complain unless you are prepared to take action? At what point will the angry mob actually stand up and organize and present a fair solution? We have the technology. The Internet has provided some of the greatest forms of distribution of Intellectual Property and ‘copyright’ ever known to man. If you like what you’re using, why not defend it properly?
Where are the solutions? I think there are probably several. But, a few solutions are apparent to me. 1) The Internet needs a Compulsory global license for Music.
This would enable websites to calculate their margins and contributions for the use of music and other media would become more standardized, which essentially reduces costs, and create a fair playing field. It would take some of the ‘control’ out of the hands of the music industry, but, the result would be hugely beneficial and rather than oppressing artistic culture financially, it would help stimulate and compensate.
2) A levy on the ISPs needs to be introduced. The Internet needs to be levied at its access points. Telecom companies are your Internet passport. They are the gateway between you and the media on the Internet. Telecoms are expanding rapidly even during a global recession. People have become very dependent on this ‘internet passport.’ The telecoms generate huge revenues and turn over massive profits. They are selling connections and bandwidth based on the premise that people want to access culture. We are paying for access. A portion of their revenues should be allocated to the media that people are accessing. A levy on the ISPs and mobile phone networks towards compensating creators would allow a passage of ‘free culture’ on the Internet whereby piracy could become obsolete. This levy could be introduced without raising the cost of Broadband to the end user if you lobby hard enough. Simply, it could come out of the ISP’s profits.
3) Government subsidies: At the moment, at least in the UK, government is ironically concerned with the economics of the music industry rather than ‘culture’. The government wants to see jobs being created. As the impact that a levy on the ISPs combined with a compulsory license for music on the Internet would essentially help create a cultural expansion on-line, so would the impact on job creation and artistic development. Theoretically, less law suits and lobbying would result in the creative industries focusing on music again. This would help free up government resources into the regeneration of music at the grass roots level rather than the seizure of resources that has been wasted on fighting piracy.
Conclusion:
“Free Culture” shouldn’t be limited to just certain sectors of the Culture and/or Economy. It doesn’t matter if you are a 12-year-old who has no money to buy a tune from itunes because he doesn’t have a credit card or the guy who makes the music and simply wants to be heard and earn a living. I hear people talking about the recession and how they are turning to music because it helps them get through these tough times. Music obviously has an important place in our human culture. Musicians give their heart, soul and left arm to be able to create. How can this all get sorted? ....
Back to Lawrence Lessig’s book ‘Free Culture’. Here’s how he puts it: “…my focus is not just on the concentration of power produced by concentrations in ownership, but more importantly, if because less visibly, on the concentration of power produced by a radical change in the effective scope of the law. The law is changing; that change is altering the way our culture gets made; that change should worry you--whether or not you care about the Internet, and whether you're on Safire's left or on his right.”
To be honest, these solutions could apply to all media on the internet and weighted and distributed based upon traffic to websites, traffic to the specific media being 'consumed' on the web, etc. Now, this could be a way to shake down the monopolies and create free culture and a viable economic culture on the internet, couldn't it?
He was right, the law is changing. It’s up to you to cast a vote otherwise somebody else will decide for you.
What will YOU do? petition
The 'angry mob' has been at it again. Lily Allen has declared that she's not planning to make another record and erased her anti-piracy blog due to abuse from the web community. It's a shame that artists who take a stand are subject to name calling and an onslaught of liable damage on the internet just for forming an opinion. Albeit, an opinion that many don't agree with. To be honest, I don't see how trying to tear someone apart and rip them to shreds is productive for p2p. In my opinion, it only hurts your position. And right now isn't very good timing for the file-sharing movement to be looking like a bunch of bullying twats, is it? (oops, see, I've just called the 'bullies' bullying twats! incredible! How hypocritical...'sarcasm intended'... I am. lol)The thing that bothers me most about all this egg throwing, is that these people who do the name-calling are the same ones who hide behind anonymous identities. They generally are not people who have a public image and I doubt they would actually say some of the things that they say if they were to meet you in person. In fact, all those people leaving nasty comments are more or less cowards who enjoy complaining but rarely take any form of positive action. Nobody's truly interested except for the other sad people who enjoy being destructive. Theoretically, these types of people who waste their time degrading others on the net are same type of people who are proud of their ASBOs. In general, destructive people are a waste of time. And believe it or not, this 'anonymity' on the web will likely disappear in the future. Remember, the net was created by military and was never designed for the public domain. We've known for quite some time that the net is due a redesign. (But, that's another issue concerning the future and ways to deal with your internet passports.)
How many of these web complainers have written to their MP or Senator about their stance on copyright or their stance on P2p? Many have plenty of time to comment, but, how many have actually done at least the bare minimum like sign a petition? Did any of them write to Mandelson? I know I have. I've written to nearly every influential person I can think of for the past few years with what I believe could represent possible solutions. Remember Lawrence Lessig's book "Free Culture".
“A free culture is not a culture without property; it is not a culture in which artists don't get paid. A culture without property, or in which creators can't get paid, is anarchy, not freedom.”-Lessig
He also states: “I believe that "piracy" is wrong, and that the law, properly tuned, should punish "piracy," whether on or off the Internet. But those simple beliefs mask a much more fundamental question and a much more dramatic change. My fear is that unless we come to see this change, the war to rid the world of Internet "pirates" will also rid our culture of values that have been integral to our tradition from the start.”
We mostly all agree that governments & Isp's taking internet access away from their customers is a complete non-starter. Maybe if Lily had a little more time to think about it, she would realise that as well. Not that I could predict the future last year, but, didn't you also see it coming? The 'internet police' plotting to take away your Internet passports (access via your IP, etc.) They are here now. Have you not heard? They want to block you from the internet and in some cases even fine you or whatever. That's what is on the agenda. I told you last year that I don't think it's right, but, they are attempting to do it in the name of 'protection'. They'll find any excuse. In this instance, it's protection of copyright. Now, everyone got really pissed off at me last year when I pointed this out and asked TPB 'why don't you start 'sharing' with the creators. The real problem is that in this past year, you've done nothing to develop or propose a viable solution. The Pirate Party has taken one extreme by saying creators don't have a right to earn from their works (please see Rick Falkvinge's statements as head of the Pirate Party in Sweden as per BBC interview Sun. Sept. 11th, 10am on Scottish BBC and twitter, and youtube videos from my last blog) and the RIAA keeps suing people. It's a joke. Most of you sit somewhere in the middle, make comments, and sit with a bag of crisps next to your PC's typing to the sound of your keyboard revelling at how cutting you can be when someone threatens peer-to-peer.
It's really down to a couple or maybe three rather obvious solutions. Nobody needs to get rid of piracy, it simply needs to be legalised in such a way that it's no longer piracy. There are some obvious solutions that would require participation from all media on the web, all websites who host, track, or deliver media, the ISPs, the government and YOU.
Below are some solutions that I've suggested before in a previous blog. If you have a moment, have a look at the petition. If you agree with it, sign it. The only way that you will be able to avoid these newly proposed laws that could potentially infringe on civil liberties is to come up with a plan that makes sense to law makers. You start out with a proposal that offers a solution to a problem that we all want solved.
Potential Solutions:
Here’s the real deal, if we don’t try to come to a compromise that suits everyone, government is going to march in and that’ll be the end of it. It’s time to start seriously thinking about this and take some action otherwise; it’s your own fault. It’s like Lily says, “It’s not me, It’s you”. It shouldn’t be just artists who stand up and make points, not just p2p users complaining about or praising artists opinions, and not just media giants who get their foot in the door pressuring governments. It’s YOU. Sweden gave us Abba and now we’ve got The Pirate Party. But, what has a mediocre and apathetic majority given us? Why complain unless you are prepared to take action? At what point will the angry mob actually stand up and organize and present a fair solution? We have the technology. The Internet has provided some of the greatest forms of distribution of Intellectual Property and ‘copyright’ ever known to man. If you like what you’re using, why not defend it properly?
Where are the solutions? I think there are probably several. But, a few solutions are apparent to me. 1) The Internet needs a Compulsory global license for Music.
This would enable websites to calculate their margins and contributions for the use of music and other media would become more standardized, which essentially reduces costs, and create a fair playing field. It would take some of the ‘control’ out of the hands of the music industry, but, the result would be hugely beneficial and rather than oppressing artistic culture financially, it would help stimulate and compensate.
2) A levy on the ISPs needs to be introduced. The Internet needs to be levied at its access points. Telecom companies are your Internet passport. They are the gateway between you and the media on the Internet. Telecoms are expanding rapidly even during a global recession. People have become very dependent on this ‘internet passport.’ The telecoms generate huge revenues and turn over massive profits. They are selling connections and bandwidth based on the premise that people want to access culture. We are paying for access. A portion of their revenues should be allocated to the media that people are accessing. A levy on the ISPs and mobile phone networks towards compensating creators would allow a passage of ‘free culture’ on the Internet whereby piracy could become obsolete. This levy could be introduced without raising the cost of Broadband to the end user if you lobby hard enough. Simply, it could come out of the ISP’s profits.
3) Government subsidies: At the moment, at least in the UK, government is ironically concerned with the economics of the music industry rather than ‘culture’. The government wants to see jobs being created. As the impact that a levy on the ISPs combined with a compulsory license for music on the Internet would essentially help create a cultural expansion on-line, so would the impact on job creation and artistic development. Theoretically, less law suits and lobbying would result in the creative industries focusing on music again. This would help free up government resources into the regeneration of music at the grass roots level rather than the seizure of resources that has been wasted on fighting piracy.
Conclusion:
“Free Culture” shouldn’t be limited to just certain sectors of the Culture and/or Economy. It doesn’t matter if you are a 12-year-old who has no money to buy a tune from itunes because he doesn’t have a credit card or the guy who makes the music and simply wants to be heard and earn a living. I hear people talking about the recession and how they are turning to music because it helps them get through these tough times. Music obviously has an important place in our human culture. Musicians give their heart, soul and left arm to be able to create. How can this all get sorted? ....
Back to Lawrence Lessig’s book ‘Free Culture’. Here’s how he puts it: “…my focus is not just on the concentration of power produced by concentrations in ownership, but more importantly, if because less visibly, on the concentration of power produced by a radical change in the effective scope of the law. The law is changing; that change is altering the way our culture gets made; that change should worry you--whether or not you care about the Internet, and whether you're on Safire's left or on his right.”
To be honest, these solutions could apply to all media on the internet and weighted and distributed based upon traffic to websites, traffic to the specific media being 'consumed' on the web, etc. Now, this could be a way to shake down the monopolies and create free culture and a viable economic culture on the internet, couldn't it?
He was right, the law is changing. It’s up to you to cast a vote otherwise somebody else will decide for you.
What will YOU do? petition
Tuesday, September 22, 2009
The Pirate Party Versus Musicians
How To Get Rid of the Oppression & Promote Free Culture
(by Indiana Gregg) For as long as you have severe extremes in society, you end up with an equal and progressively apathetic majority. When this is the general prognosis, no progress is made. If the spark of the society is only in it’s extremes, mediocrity sets in and only extreme provocation can arouse that spirit of indifference. Apathy and comfort can kill the kindle altogether. This is what I see happening in the P2p movement. They are stagnant using the ‘industry’ as an excuse for the martyrdom rather than using their strength in numbers to produce real change.
The Pirate Party versus Musicians:
Anyway, let’s see here, there are at least three sides to the plot. (Well, maybe a few more, but, for the sake of the length of this blog, let’s look at three various perspectives in the argument, shall we?)
A) The Pirate Party & P2p
B) Artists who would like to earn a living from their music.
C) Major corporations linking up with governments to protect their special interests while attempting to abolish a new technology.
A) The Pirate Party and P2p
Here you have a group that calls themselves ‘The Pirate Party”, born in Sweden and currently under the leadership of Rick Falkvinge . But, I have a few questions for the Pirate Party.
How can this party be both anti-censorship and pro-oppression at the same time? In fact, how can a party whose name is historically synonymous with Anarchy be wielding their flag around civil liberty and privacy issues at all? So far, this group has used arguments about how you can’t stop new technology and to some extent, I agree.
Rick Falkvinge explains how new technology traditional replaces dying industry. (If I remember correctly, we’ve heard Peter Sunde use this same or similar analogy as well.) Here’s their sketch: ....
“Well, not too long ago in my country of Sweden, men used to go out and cut ice and deliver it to the people and get paid to keep people’s food cold. But, then, the refrigerator came along and nobody needed the ice to be delivered anymore, so, they all went out of business and everyone replaced them with fridges.” (This is not a direct quote. This is paraphrased. The links to Rick’s video presentation can be found below.)
Well, that’s a fine analogy, except, it doesn’t really apply to P2p does it?
You see, the refrigerator may have replaced ice deliveryman, however, the refrigerator didn’t share other people’s work in order to freeze the ice or cool the food. Yes, the refrigerator caused a shift in the economy and put the ice men out of business. Yes, the ‘fridge’ was ‘new’ technology. But, people used the same food on the ice as they did with the fridge and they still paid for both the food and the fridge and even the ice deliveryman.
Music, Film, TV, media, etc is like the food in the fridge. It’s not as if the food disappeared just because there was a change in technology. I mean, people still buy food and refrigerators in Sweden, right? Likewise, music, which has fueled the use of this new technology, has been created through hard work. People are still paying for food. But, with p2p, they aren’t paying for music.
Now, you might say that music has always been the ‘software’ that helped sell the ‘hardware’.
In the past, records meant people had to buy record players, cassettes sold tape players and on through the years this applied to cd players (made by companies who owned the software (music), dvd players, ipods, computers and now it ultimately applies to internet access. The bottom line is Creators help sell you the hardware and now, creators have assisted in selling you broadband. Why do you think broadband has expanded so rapidly? The ISPs are using entertainment to get you to upgrade your bandwidth so that you can access entertainment and media rapidly. That’s cool. Except, that it’s not fair for the artists. Falkvinge thinks that we need to ‘sacrifice’ a sector of our culture and industry in order to safeguard civil liberties. But, realistically, there’s a much better solution. Because that kind of attitude is exactly what will fuel the fire underneath Big Business and Government ‘bonding’ that has taken place over the past year. (More about that later).
Mr. Falkvinge has another argument where he uses wooden chairs as an analogy. He states something like ‘ if you buy a chair, you should be allowed to let your neighbor sit on it. You should be able to take it to bits and give people parts of your chair.’ So, is he saying that if you own music, you should be allowed to ‘share’ it endlessly because this is a fundamental human right? Sure, it’s human nature to share culture. I’ll go for that.
However, the difference between owning a chair and P2p is that the minute you let someone else sit on your chair, you no longer have the use of that chair. Likewise, the minute you take it to bits and give people pieces of the chair, you no longer have the whole chair. Sounds good though because Rick is a very eloquent and intelligent speaker, but, Rick, you’ll need to run that one by us again because I’m just not ‘getting’ it completely. It’s this whole ‘share’ word that the p2p community keeps using that isn’t ringing true. The last time I checked my dictionary the word ‘Share’ meant this:
Share:
1. A part or portion belonging to, distributed to, contributed by, or owed by a person or group 2. An equitable portion: do one's share of the work
3. Any of the equal parts into which the capital stock of a corporation or company is divided
P2p isn’t ‘sharing’. P2p users are not ‘sharing’ culture. It’s not like they are saying "here dude, I’ll give you my middle 8 from this song. I don’t really need it, so, I’ll ‘share’ it with you." Sharing is when you give someone a portion of something and once you give it, you no longer have that portion. End of. P2p users don’t share. P2p users ‘duplicate’. They ‘copy’. (Isn’t that why they are so hung up about copyright control?) They believe they have the right to copy whatever they want from whomever they want worldwide. Likewise, P2p users do not do anything ‘cultural’ during this duplication process. It’s their PC’s that are doing the ‘copying’and they don’t need to know anything about the people that they are supposedly sharing the contents of their PC’s with.
Now, I’m not saying that doing all this copying is a bad thing. However, I will say that doing all this copying whereby everyone EXCEPT the creators are getting value and compensation is wrong. Ands o far, nobody on the planet can truly come up with a justifiable argument for why ISPs, websites, users, or anyone else should all receive a benefit from using someone else’s work while the creators who have made those works are being oppressed. Creators are being asked to triple their workload just so the rest of the chain can have what they want. (See section on ‘Artists’)
Rick Falkvinge again makes a statement to this effect: “Well, music won’t disappear. We have accountants who will go home and pick up a guitar at night. We’ve had art since men have made cave drawings.” (Paraphrased from the panel that we did on BBC last week). Come on, tell me what percentage of file-sharers are going home and picking up their guitars and making records? If all file-sharers were making their own music, they wouldn’t need to have other people’s music. They could copy and share their own music. Let’s remember, we aren’t dissing the technology here. P2p is an amazing form of distribution. But, still, the results and benefits of the technology remain imbalanced. The creator is being exploited to the benefit of the receiver, the ISPs, and the site owners.
Having said that, Rick does have some issues where I agree with him 100%. With this whole issue of piracy comes the GOVERNMENTS and ISPs who could potentially be infringing upon civil liberties via some of the laws that are being discussed at the moment. I believe that we can all agree that we don’t want that. We don’t want the Government to read our personal emails. I also agree with him that there does need to be some changes in copyright law as it stands now. There needs to be a little less ‘control’ and a little more compromise. That’s certain. Whether you like it or not, government, ISPs and Corporations are teaming up and they’ll succeed in passing new laws governing the internet while using ‘protection’ as the excuse. Like I said before, we all have a right to be ‘protected’ don’t we? But, this is a protection that could interfere with your civil liberties. They’ve already done it in the name of terrorism. Now, looks like they will be able to invade our computers soon in the fight against ‘piracy’ thanks to the radical stance that the Pirate movement has taken, Government and corporate interest will be able to cut off your Internet soon. It’s happening already.
Somehow in the mix of all this, it’s ironic that The Pirate Party in Sweden would be encouraging a debate about civil liberties. If you were an anarchist, why would you worry about civil liberties? The Pirate Party and a good portion of the P2p community somehow believe that artists and musicians shouldn’t be compensated or make a living from their work. (I realize that not all file-sharers feel this way; however, there is a great movement from this sector proclaiming that artists shouldn’t make a living from their music outside of gigging and perhaps t-shirt sales.) In fact, many will deliberately misinterpret Lawrence Lessig’s book ‘Free Culture’ to promote this viewpoint even though Lessig clearly states “A free culture is not a culture without property; it is not a culture in which artists don't get paid. A culture without property, or in which creators can't get paid, is anarchy, not freedom.”
So, how do you claim ‘free culture’, anti-censorship, pro- civil rights, anarchy and the oppression of an entire sector of the culture and economy all under one Pirate flag?
I know it’s a bit provocative for me to point this bit out, but, hang on a second here with your ice men and refrigerators and invasions of emails & the skirting around the issues of ‘piracy’ which is the true name and flag that is flying for this seat of EU parliament that you’ve won, but not necessarily earned. (Now, I know this might seriously piss you off. Don’t get me wrong. I actually think you’re brilliant. But, let’s shuffle the cards and play with a clean deck,:)
The head of the Pirate Party stating that artists don’t have the right to earn a living from their work is completely absurd. In this case, you also don’t believe that the mechanic who fixes your car, the plumber that fixes your sink, or the Doctor who prescribes you medicine should be paid either? These are all trades, crafts and professions and musicianship is a skill and a craft. Musician’s study and hone their craft for years. Just because technology can duplicate their works doesn’t mean that a solution shouldn’t be found that compensates for this injustice. The technology is P2p, the technology is Internet. Music is music. It hasn’t changed. It’s still of huge importance in our culture. The mp3 + P2p or any other content delivery system + Broadband is simply a combination of a relatively new format for music with a new distribution system and new ‘hardware’. Music is like the software that sells the hardware. Music hasn’t changed, only the format. We were keeping food cold whether it was on ice or in a fridge. Still food.
Why isn’t the Pirate Party lobbying for a real solution? Why doesn’t the Pirate Party say, “Hey, here’s an idea, why don’t we lobby for a compulsory license for music on the Internet. Why don’t we initiate a lobby that would place a small levy on the ISPs, a small levy on sites that provide access to music, and perhaps push for a government subsidy for creators?”
An ISP provider today generally can supply your phone, TV and Internet. A Provider like Virgin Media or Sky has to pay the creators of the television programs money to give you access to watch them down the same digital pipe that supplies your Internet. Yet, they don’t pay any of the creators of the Internet content a single penny. In a highly competitive TV world, if they were only to show programs they acquired for nothing rather than the premium content programs they have to buy to attract subscribers, then the subscribers would all signed up to their competition, wouldn’t they? Music is premium content on the Internet, yet they are allowed to circumvent the free distribution of music while making fast profits from the traffic it produces. Come on, look at the margins that telecom companies are making and with the projected expansion of broadband, it wouldn’t be hard to generate money to be distributed to artists.
Why is the Pirate Party so half-baked? How can you be against censorship but at the same time stand for oppression? Because in reality, you are asking that artists to give their work away free after they have poured time and money both into the creation and the marketing of their work and then, try to come up with tour support and finance tours from ‘thin air’, sell, t-shirts and merchandise to an audience of p2p users whom they have no idea where they come from, and basically be a slave to your cause. At the moment, the Pirate Party indirectly stands for the oppression of the artistic community.
At the moment, the same applies to P2p users. P2p is not a chicken or egg scenario. People find out about music after the music has been marketed to them. It’s not some tiny garage band that happens to upload a file to a p2p network that gets discovered and downloaded by the masses that people are ‘copying’ or ‘sharing’. And even it that were to happen, realistically, if the band came up with the money to go on tour, where would they go? It could be 40 thousand people the US, half a million people in China and 3000 people spread over the UK and10 thousand people in Zimbabwe who downloaded their work. How would they be able to target where their fans are?
“A free culture is not a culture without property; it is not a culture in which artists don't get paid. A culture without property, or in which creators can't get paid, is anarchy, not freedom.”-Lessig
“Artists don’t have the right to make money”- Falkvinge on behalf of The Pirate Party....
So, hey, let’s leave the Pirate Party alone now and talk to group B) The Art-istes’
B) The Artists
For the sake of this blog, I’m only going to deal with music, although, a lot of this will apply to other media. However, let’s deal with the three sets of ‘Artists’. Based upon recent history, we have a divided group here. You have group 1) Big Artists who have benefited from the record labels who supported them and brought them to a level of stardom and 2) Breaking artists who have built a following and had investors to answer to and 3) the unknown and unsigned. All three have one thing in common. They make music for the love of it. They would make music come rain or shine, but, they all have various sets of goals and various sets of ‘investors’ to answer to.
Group 1) Big Acts. In this group we have the likes of Radiohead, Nine Inch Nails, and the lot who have benefited from hefty support and financial backing from major record labels and/or major independent labels. These acts were fed advances, they recouped, they were invested in heavily and they had support over a period of years to the point where they gathered a following and became well known enough to tour and make a living even with or without label support. These are the superstars. These guys say ‘sure kids, here’s a free download. We’ll see you at the 02 arena. Which is completely fine and it’s entirely up to them whether they want people to have their music for free or not. They’ve made it. They paid their dues and they had the support back in the day when people bought records. More power to them. These people worked hard, played hard and earned their place through talent, investment, and endurance.
Unfortunately, some of these acts have unintentionally sent out a message that p2p users often deliberately misconstrue. How many piracy advocates have gone and said ‘look at Radiohead and Nine inch Nails. They are cool because they say it’s ok for us to share their music.’ OK, yes, they did. But, I didn’t hear any of them say “Hey kids, it’s cool. You can go and share everybody else’s music too." Nope, I didn’t hear Radiohead or Nine Inch Nails or Trent Reznor saying that. In fact, I think they were only talking about their own music. And that’s their artistic right. You know, suddenly they are independents with a big following after years of investment from either major labels or big independents. How many superstars didn’t have the push of a big label during their careers? Their message doesn’t apply to Group 2 of the artist community. Big acts who are giving away their music are the superstars who were born breed and nurtured by the Recording Industry of the past. That’s their story. We love them. We’ll pay to see them. We know who they are. It wasn’t p2p or the Internet that raised them up. It was vinyl; cassettes, plastic discs, hard cash and hard work from a lot of people in the wings who helped build them up. They were born of the ‘industry’. Like it or lump it. The industry pushed power bucks and power time into their art.
In this group, you will find that artists often ‘pay to play’ at the beginning. Either the record company or the independent themselves pay to be able to play a support slot on a national tour. The record company will subsequently pay for a tour for the artists by offering tour support to promote the album. Money will be poured into promoting the tour, the cost of the venues, the costs of gear, tour buses, flights, the band, hotels, etc. But, at this point, the artist is playing small to medium sized venues and cannot charge too much because they have not yet reached Group 1 level. This exercise is performed in order to hopefully promote more album and single sales. But, guess what, the margins are very tight. And whether or not you argue that a p2p download is a ‘loss leader’ or not, you have to acknowledge that you more than likely found out about the artist or band marketing. You saw them on TV, you read an article in a music mag, you listened to them on myspace or watched a Youtube video, or you heard them on the radio, or you went to a gig. All of these methods were a result of money, time, and marketing. Maybe a friend suggested them to you. But, your friend also found out about them through one of these ‘marketing’ endeavors. (Marketing that the artist, label, and investor paid for.) P2p did not market the artist. P2p simply allowed you to copy without compensating that artist for their hard work. P2p is amazing. Don’t get me wrong. Wonderful technology. But, Free culture is not ‘free’ for the artist who is actually offering you this ‘culture’ that many of you claim to have a fundamental right to. Until p2p can compensate the artist, it’s not ‘free culture’ it’s ‘free loading’. But, later, we’ll talk about solutions. Let’s move to group 3. “The unsigned band."
Group 3: The unsigned band
The unsigned bands are the newbies. This group is crowded. They are just starting out and are often finding their feet. They play a lot of free gigs or might pay to play. They get a group of tunes together and play to see whom their audiences are. They are molding their style and looking for fans as a sounding board. Both Group 1 & 2 have been there. They work to raise their profile. Put their songs all over the Internet and encourage people to download them. They don’t expect anything in return other than your appreciation. But, we know that they are developing their art and either slag them off or try to encourage them. Most of the unsigned band lot are vying for a ‘record deal’. The pie in the sky for this lot is to ‘get signed’ or find someone to invest in their music. Some of them will be over the moon if they can find a manager who will help them get exposure. P2p sounds like a great opportunity for them. The give free access to their music on p2p networks just to ‘get heard’. Ultimately, they would like to be able to quit their day jobs and make music. Some of them get a following and hope that a record label will pick them up. Problem is, if group 1 and 2 aren’t generating revenues, group 3 doesn’t stand a chance on getting a deal. Group 3 have to develop themselves. They work a little harder. Go into debt. Take out a mortgage on their homes or borrow money from their parents or whoever. They keep working just to get up the rung on the ladder so they can get to Group 2 eventually and make a ‘deal’. Their hope is to earn a living and do what they have chosen as their ‘real’ career rather than working as a waiter or whatever. But, with the Pirate argument, they will never make or have a right to ‘make a living’ from their recorded music.
Of course, after these three, there are DJ’s, Producers, session musicians, orchestras, engineers and an entire gambit of people who go jobless. It’s not the labels that are suffering. It’s the real creators.
CHANGE
How could p2p, the Internet, social media and the apathetic masses really help out here? Well, let’s talk about the government and big business and then, we can discuss some possible solutions.
C) Major corporations linking up with Governments to protect their interests
Right, now, let’s have a look at the debate on piracy from last year to the present because A LOT has happened. What’s going on with Government and The Big Dreaded “industry” that everybody seems to hate these days? Here’s the run down:
1) The Pirate Party has a seat in the European Parliament....
2) The Pirate Bay has been sentenced to prison plus a fine and some of their fair-weather friends have labeled them as sell-outs. ....
3) The ISPs have sent warning letters about downloading to their users.
4) More file-sharers have been targeted and prosecuted by the ‘industry’ as guinea pig examples to try to ‘scare-off’
5) The Music Industry and it's Artists seem to be at loggerheads with each other (Lily versus Radiohead, etc.) and the Industry claims that nearly 95% of all downloads are 'unauthorised'.
6) And last but not least, the government has started issuing Internet Passports and the Wild West of the Internet is being harnessed through your Access point, IP address and ISP monitoring.
Hang on, you ask: Did she say Internet Passports again? Are our IP’s being monitored? Is the government snooping into our computers? Oh my, our Civil liberties could be infringed upon? Hang on. Not ‘could be’. They ARE going to be infringed upon.
Thanks to the Pirate movement and their radical stance about oppressing the artistic community rather than suggesting a solution and the RIAA taking a radical stance against new forms of distribution rather than embracing it from the onset, we are left with an apathetic majority of people who will be effected by the new laws which are being formed through a joint-venture between the Government, The Telecom corporations, and The Big Industry that everyone claims ripped them off all these years. These new laws will ultimately invade your privacy unless the apathetic majority wakes up and begins to look at potential solutions.
One year later, is anyone any better off? Ten years later?
Zarkozy has gone with enforcing the 3-strikes rule. Mandelson is talking about seriously penalizing file-sharing. The Pirate Party is talking about how your personal emails could be invaded by the government looking for anything. Or everything. Before you know it, you’re personal emails could be scrutinized. Letter’s to your mother, brother, lover or whoever might be scanned by government employees if you are a potential ‘file-sharer’. We already talked about this last year when I predicted that the Internet police were coming. Now, they’re here. If you don’t believe me, ask the Pirate Party Leader himself or watch one of his presentations here: http://blip.tv/play/AYGQ%2B0iZnQk for part one and here: http://blip.tv/play/AYGJpFKNsjU for part two. So, even though he’s talking about chairs and ice deliverymen. And even though I don’t agree with him on this point about artists not deserving to be compensated. We can’t ‘both’ be wrong about where this all heading can we? Rick & I (or most artists) sit at opposite extremes of the paradigm.
But, we have one thing in common. We don’t want our civil liberties messed with, do we? I mean, I asked this rhetorical question last time in ‘The internet police are coming’. (and that was sooo ‘last year’ wasn’t it?) I said something like, we all have a right to be protected don’t we? Who’s going to defend that right? You apathetic sheep? Well, it better be you. Lessig’s “Free Culture” states: “That powerful interest too often exerts its influence within the government to get the government to protect it.” He goes on to say “I believe that "piracy" is wrong, and that the law, properly tuned, should punish "piracy," whether on or off the Internet. But those simple beliefs mask a much more fundamental question and a much more dramatic change. My fear is that unless we come to see this change, the war to rid the world of Internet "pirates" will also rid our culture of values that have been integral to our tradition from the start.” Lessig goes on and divides file-sharers into various groups. He goes from the file-sharers who explicitly share or ‘copy’ files simply because they don’t want to buy them all the way through to the sharers who want files that are no longer commercially available. However, whether you view mass copying (sharing) as a lost leader or an extreme rape of copyright, the bottom line is that creators are not compensated. They are the only one’s who are not receiving a measurable benefit from their work. The problem with the Recording Industry is that they haven’t made an effort to accept P2p. Lessig states: “They should push us to find a way to protect artists while enabling this sharing to survive.” I agree with this entirely. When we first started working on the Kerchoonz project three years ago, our first port of call was with Bittorrent. We analyzed whether the industry would be accepting of a model that used P2p. But, the issues were ‘control’ and at that point, the labels all felt as though they still had a viable business with iTunes and CD sales. Now, perhaps their position is changing. ( Whether you like me or hate me, you’re going to have to place your vote on this one. But, how can you vote and what are the possible solutions?0
Solutions:
Here’s the real deal, if we don’t try to come to a compromise that suits everyone, government is going to march in and that’ll be the end of it. It’s time to start seriously thinking about this and take some action otherwise; it’s your own fault. It’s like Lily says, “It’s not me, It’s you”. It shouldn’t be just artists who stand up and make points, not just p2p users complaining about or praising artists opinions, and not just media giants who get their foot in the door pressuring governments. It’s YOU. Sweden gave us Abba and now we’ve got The Pirate Party. But, what has a mediocre and apathetic majority given us? Why complain unless you are prepared to take action? At what point will the angry mob actually stand up and organize and present a fair solution? We have the technology. The Internet has provided some of the greatest forms of distribution of Intellectual Property and ‘copyright’ ever known to man. If you like what you’re using, why not defend it properly?....
Where are the solutions? I think there are probably several. But, a few solutions are apparent to me. 1) The Internet needs a Compulsory global license for Music. http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/compulsary_worldwide_digital_mus/index.html
(Ironically, I found the link to this petition in a comment on Torrent Freak’s blog).
This would enable websites to calculate their margins and contributions for the use of music and other media would become more standardized.. .. .. .. .. .... , which essentially reduces costs, and create a fair playing field. It would take some of the ‘control’ out of the hands of the music industry, but, the result would be hugely beneficial and rather than oppressing artistic culture financially, it would help stimulate and compensate. ....
2) A levy on the ISPs needs to be introduced. The Internet needs to be levied at its access points. Telecom companies are your Internet passport. They are the gateway between you and the media on the Internet. Telecoms are expanding rapidly even during a global recession. People have become very dependent on this ‘internet passport.’ The telecoms generate huge revenues and turn over massive profits. They are selling connections and bandwidth based on the premise that people want to access culture. We are paying for access. A portion of their revenues should be allocated to the media that people are accessing. A levy on the ISPs and mobile phone networks towards compensating creators would allow a passage of ‘free culture’ on the Internet whereby piracy could become obsolete. This levy could be introduced without raising the cost of Broadband to the end user if you lobby hard enough. Simply, it could come out of the ISP’s profits. ....
....
3) Government subsidies: At the moment, at least in the UK, government is ironically concerned with the economics of the music industry rather than ‘culture’. The government wants to see jobs being created. As the impact that a levy on the ISPs combined with a compulsory license for music on the Internet would essentially help create a cultural expansion on-line, so would the impact on job creation and artistic development. Theoretically, less law suits and lobbying would result in the creative industries focusing on music again. This would help free up government resources into the regeneration of music at the grass roots level rather than the seizure of resources that has been wasted on fighting piracy.
....Conclusion:....
“Free Culture” shouldn’t be limited to just certain sectors of the Culture and/or Economy. It doesn’t matter if you are a 12-year-old who has no money to buy a tune from itunes because he doesn’t have a credit card or the guy who makes the music and simply wants to be heard and earn a living. I hear people talking about the recession and how they are turning to music because it helps them get through these tough times. Music obviously has an important place in our human culture. Musicians give their heart, soul and left arm to be able to create. How can this all get sorted? ....
Back to Lawrence Lessig’s book ‘Free Culture’. Here’s how he puts it: “…my focus is not just on the concentration of power produced by concentrations in ownership, but more importantly, if because less visibly, on the concentration of power produced by a radical change in the effective scope of the law. The law is changing; that change is altering the way our culture gets made; that change should worry you--whether or not you care about the Internet, and whether you're on Safire's left or on his right.”
He’s right, the law is changing. It’s up to you to cast a vote otherwise somebody else will decide for you.
PS: Photo credits courtesy of google.
Monday, August 17, 2009
15 Things To Sort Out Before Your First Gig
How To Start A Band: Questions To Cover Before You Play Your First Gig
So, you've got yourself a group of guys who like playing the same kind of music and you've sweat in the rehearsal room for a few weeks. You may be best friends now, but, how do you insure that you'll stay good friends in the future? There are several things to consider before you hit the road or get your feet wet in the studio and you may want to consider a few of these points below and even if you have it all together, you might want to consider some of the pitfalls to avoid just in case your band begins to become popular, or even 'profitable'.
Many bands start out as a group of friends from school or the neighborhood who like getting together for a jam. Eventually, the band starts to sound great and decides to record some tracks and do some gigs. This is all good fun, but, what happens when the band begins to get 'serious'? What happens when you start recording or gigging and someone from outside the band begins to take interest?
When I was in university, I began to play in a rock band. We played at various clubs and parties and had a lot of fun for about a year or so. Then, one day, a guy walked into one of our rehearsals who had been invited by our bassist's father. After the rehearsal, as we were packing up our gear to go home, this guy started talking to us. "What do you say I schedule some recording time for you guys to make a few demos?" We were all nodding our heads. "Sure, that's great". Next thing we knew, we were in the recording studio recording our songs. We made copies of our demos and began to send them out to a few managers and indie labels.
Eventually, we were offered a deal. But, wait a minute, Joe didn't tell us that WE didn't OWN the copyright to our recordings. So, who owned them? Joe did! And that wasn't the only problem, when the record company proposed that we re-record the songs, it led to a fight within the band about who the true songwriters were. Since we had all spent a year working on the songs, it seemed logical that we would all be considered 'writers'. However, a couple of the band members began to claim that they had written the songs beforehand. This lead to some disputes, rivalry, and a lot of grief for all of us. Arguments about what the band should be called (because the old name was suddenly not good enough) and who owned the keyboard that we had all chipped in to buy erupted. So, within a year we had gone from being best band mates to arch rivals all due to some interest from a record label and our new friend 'Joe'.
Some might just consider this typical immature band behaviour. However, it could have been easily avoided had we asked ourselves the following questions and come to agreements beforehand:
Here's a list of fifeen things to resolve and define in your band before you ever put your gear up on stage:
1. What's your Band name? Who owns your bands brand or trademark?
2. Who's the owner of the equipment that the band bought? How is that divided amongst you?
3. How will the band handle money coming in?
4. Does your band have a band bank account and who will be in charge of the financials?
5. Who will you designate to make agreements on the band's behalf?
6. How will the band split any royalties from publishing/ song writing splits
7. Who owns the copyright to your recordings?
8. What about your merchandise? Who has the rights?
9. Who will keep track of inventory (both equipment and physical merchandise) for the band?
10. What will you do when one of the band members quits?
11. How do you split the work and the money when a new member joins?
12. How do you plan to handle any disputes?
13. How are the various duties going to be split up between the members?
14. Who will run the website and manage your online presence?
15. What portion of your incoming monies will go towards further promoting the band after expenses are met?
A few bands make it without ever considering these important questions, however, most do not. However, if you are serious about making music and making some money from your music, you may consider setting up your band as a business. After all, once you begin to get paid for your music and merchandis be it online or at gigs, you may want to think about setting the band up as either a partnership or corporation.
You may think now 'well, we just want to have fun and hope we get a record deal". However, you can save yourselves a good deal of heartache by setting a bit of time aside to answer these important questions. It's important that your band works as a unit both on stage and off. If everyone can decide 'who does what?" and "how things will be handled?You'll have less heartache in case your band starts earning money.
Many bands work with one or two 'lead' members who take care of everything from booking the band at gigs to building the website, working the social networks, and even dealing with the band's promotions. Sometimes, there are only a couple of 'songwriters' in the band. Sometimes there are situations where the band may pitch in to buy one of the members a new instrument or a band PA system or a van to travel with. How do you decide who owns the gear? Did one of the members donate it to the band? Was it a loan? What happens to their share when they leave? How do you split the profits and publishing?
If you run your band like a small business and designate roles for each member to fill from the beginning, , you will be less likely to have disputes about who owns the PA, who owns the copyright to a song, or who seems to be 'carrying all the weight' for the band. If you find that there is a gap where work needs to be done and there is not a member of the band with those skill sets, you may need to outsource that work to either a trustworthy fan who does, or in some cases, you may need to hire the services of a professional.
In any case, make sure you find the time to answer these important questions. Make agreements amongst yourselves and have all your band members sign off to a list of duties and protocol about how things will be handled. Give everyone a copy, and start taking care of business. This will free up more time have loads of fun making music now while greatly reducing the potential for hassles and frustrations later.
Indiana Gregg is co-founder of music social networking site Kerchoonz . Kerchoonz pays musicians when their music is played. Bands and artists can stream and sell their music directly from their profile. They can also sell their cds, merchandise and gear and use Kerchoonz tools to help promote their band. Kerchoonz is free to join:
http://www.kerchoonz.com
Source: http://www.submityourarticle.com
Permalink: http://www.submityourarticle.com/a.php?a=64894
Saturday, June 13, 2009
Women's Radio on Indiana Gregg, Kerchoonz, K'ching & K-box
Listen to Women's Radio Brian Ball's interview with Indiana about the official launch of new Social Networking site Kerchoonz.com and new features like K'ching where artists and fans alike can buy and sell products and tweet & Facebook and share the products that they are buying and selling to the world.
A new digital download shop for artists and the new K-box from Kerchoonz that turns surfaces into sound! listen here
Monday, June 8, 2009
New News from Kerchoonz!
Kerchoonz has been working behind the scenes to bring users a new look and some new tools which will be launched later on this week.First of all, one of the new sections to Kerchoonz is Kching! Which you will soon be able to find on http://www.kerchoonz.com/kching . Kching is a new auction and store section where all of our users will be able to sell and buy items through Kerchoonz. This means that bands and artists will be able to sell their cd's and merchandise and users will be able to buy and sell as well. So, if you have a business or even if you want to sell used things that you have around the house, you will be able to use Kching. Your items will show up on your user profile page as well as in the the general Kching store.Another new thing that we are launching this week is our integration with Facebook. From this week forward, you will be able to link your Facebook page to Kerchoonz so that you can report your activities on kerchoonz to facebook. So, if you write a blog, update your status, or post new music or videos, your facebook friends will also see the link on facebook. There is also an invite feature so that you can invite your facebook friends to come hang out with you on Kerchoonz and they will be able to use their facebook login ID to join Kerchoonz.
We are also introducing a chat and status bar at the bottom of Kerchoonz pages so that you can instantly chat with your friends and navigate around the site whilst you are talking with your buddies instantly. You can see the chat bar at the bottom of the screen grab to the left here. It won't look exactly like this though once it goes live...it will look cooler and have even more functionality.Additionally, we have done a twitter integration that will soon go live that allows you to update your twitter status both to and from twitter and your status updates will show up in both your Kerchoonz feed and your twitter feed and you will be able to tweet any media that you would like to share on twitter directly from Kerchoonz! By the way, you can follow Kerchoonz on twitter: @kerchoonzOne last thing we've done recently is K-box. We've recently unveiled an mp3 player accessory that turns surfaces into sound. It connects with any iphone, ipod, laptop, mp3 player, phone, tv, dvd player or gaming unit (as long as it has a headphone or speaker jack) and basically, it's small and portable and you can use it just about anywhere! 
You just plug the K-box into your device and set the K-box on any flat surface and the K-box overtakes the surface and turns it into a loudspeaker with bass (that's right, no more tinny sounding mini-speakers, this one does 40-20khz bass and has an average spl of 95Db! So, how cool is that? You can get more info about the K-box at http://www.kerchoonz.com/kboxAnyway, so that's the new news from Kerchoonz.If you're not already a member, sign-up today! It's going to be very very cool and we're growing like a weed already!!!Love and music, Kerchoonz!
Tuesday, May 26, 2009
Sunday, May 24, 2009
Kbox audio! How to turn surfaces into Sound!
This is the Kbox! It's my favorite new gadget. The Kbox is a small portable speaker that can turn any surface into a loudspeaker. It works through a patented Gel audio technology(TM)developed in Scotland. Basically, you just plug the Kbox into your iphone, laptop, mp3 player, TV, or even your DS Lite (any portable game unit) and then, you set the Kbox onto a flat surface and it overtakes the surface to turn it into a loudspeaker.Kbox has an average output of 95Db at 1m and puts out bass at 40-20KHz. So, great sound quality coming out of a gadget that is about the size of an iphone! Pretty cool because it means that you can carry your digital tunes with you wherever you go and you don't have to rely on sound coming out of your laptop or that horrible sound that comes out of mp3 players and phones. Kbox is like being able to take your stereo speakers with you in your pocket! The Kbox only weighs 406grams, so, it's really easy to bring it with you anywhere. Pretty cool, eh?
Kbox is available exclusively at Kerchoonz: http://www.kerchoonz.com/kbox
and retails for only £39.99 (about $60 USD). Not bad!
Tuesday, February 3, 2009
Monday, February 2, 2009
Sunday, January 4, 2009
The 'influential' Downloaders
oh my. The "influential downloaders" are at the harassment game again...lol
Well, apparently there has been another blog about Kerchoonz and 'Indiana Gregg' by the Torrent Freak. They must be terribly annoyed by the recent news that the IFPI and the government have formed an 'internet police' and that my wee blog was actually telling the truth about the future of the internet: http://www.kerchoonz.com/dignews/display_article/id_198/ (this is only a couple of recent agreements between ISPs and the IFPI in conjunction with government support as a deterrent to unauthorised file-sharing out of many since last july when we asked 350 unauthorised sites to delete links from torrent servers.)
The funny thing is, suddenly I've gotten a load more 'hate mail' as if I have anything to do with the rather OBVIOUS chain of reactions that has led to this result. One guy who calls himself "Alex" wrote me a message saying that I should just 'stop posting things on the internet and shut-up'??? So, now the file-sharers are trying to control freedom of speech on my own blog? He followed by saying that I've pissed off all of the "influential downloaders" on the internet and that I will never have a career. (Please, if you decide to write to me, try to at least sound like you've got some sense.)
I'm interested in helping musicians. I will always take the side of the musician/artist/band and the public! However, I will not tolerate tyrannical thieves who have decided that blatant stealing and flagrant lying is 'ok'. It's not ok and we won't 'shut up'.
As for the torrent freak article and the harrassing messengers: kerchoonz.com is in beta. It's a completely new site that isn't even fully launched yet. It's a site designed to help musicians and also provide free access to music for the public. It's your choice to either use it or not once it's launched. If you like using torrents, well, continue using torrents. If you'd rather use something that benefits the musicians, there are sites that are beginning to offer legal alternatives. So, what's all the fuss about?
Well, apparently there has been another blog about Kerchoonz and 'Indiana Gregg' by the Torrent Freak. They must be terribly annoyed by the recent news that the IFPI and the government have formed an 'internet police' and that my wee blog was actually telling the truth about the future of the internet: http://www.kerchoonz.com/dignews/display_article/id_198/ (this is only a couple of recent agreements between ISPs and the IFPI in conjunction with government support as a deterrent to unauthorised file-sharing out of many since last july when we asked 350 unauthorised sites to delete links from torrent servers.)
The funny thing is, suddenly I've gotten a load more 'hate mail' as if I have anything to do with the rather OBVIOUS chain of reactions that has led to this result. One guy who calls himself "Alex" wrote me a message saying that I should just 'stop posting things on the internet and shut-up'??? So, now the file-sharers are trying to control freedom of speech on my own blog? He followed by saying that I've pissed off all of the "influential downloaders" on the internet and that I will never have a career. (Please, if you decide to write to me, try to at least sound like you've got some sense.)
I'm interested in helping musicians. I will always take the side of the musician/artist/band and the public! However, I will not tolerate tyrannical thieves who have decided that blatant stealing and flagrant lying is 'ok'. It's not ok and we won't 'shut up'.
As for the torrent freak article and the harrassing messengers: kerchoonz.com is in beta. It's a completely new site that isn't even fully launched yet. It's a site designed to help musicians and also provide free access to music for the public. It's your choice to either use it or not once it's launched. If you like using torrents, well, continue using torrents. If you'd rather use something that benefits the musicians, there are sites that are beginning to offer legal alternatives. So, what's all the fuss about?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)