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?
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.
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.
So, what about Artist Group 2. This group involves artists like the Lily Allen (s) of the world who have only just paid back their ‘advance’ and recouped on the investment they had from their investors or record label. There are many of these who are caught in the middle. They’ve sold a lot of records, and they’ve finally broken even and file-sharers have soaked-up the remainder that the artist would have normally been able to make a living from once they’ve paid back their ‘label’ otherwise known as their ‘investors’. This group of people has to make up for this loss through more gigs, more work, and more merch sales. They are already working hard and spending most of their time promoting their music anyway. You’re asking them to work 3 times as hard for something they already worked hard for in the first place and you have the benefit of ‘copying’ their work endlessly. You also have another group of independents that have set up their own label up and raised capital to market their music with from either their own pockets or private investors. In reality, it’s about the same thing. Only, when you go the ‘investor’ route, you don’t get a hefty advance to live off of while you’re making a record and doing promotion. In either case, if you don’t break-even, you get dropped and generally, investors are looking for some profits.
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.
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)
