Artists Don’t Want Pirate Fans to be Disconnected
Written by Ernesto on May 18, 2009Last week, a group of music and other entertainment industry representatives urged the UK government to consider drafting legislation that would force ISPs to disconnect alleged pirates. This proposal now faces opposition from an unexpected corner as a coalition of top artists has spoken out against it, saying that disconnecting their fans is the wrong path to take.
In an attempt to have their voices heard, a group of leading musicians have started their own lobby group, the Featured Artists Coalition (FAC). The group includes members such as Robbie Williams, Billy Bragg, Radiohead, Iron Maiden and Travis, and aims to correct music labels and lobby groups that claim to act in the best interest of artists.
The most recent intervention by the coalition of artists concerns the call by entertainment industry lobby groups for so called ‘three-strikes’ legislation, to disconnect repeat copyright infringers. Again, the copyright lobby has been acting on its own and without asking for input from the very artists they claim to represent.
“Not for the first time, we at the Featured Artist Coalition are forced to question whether the record industry is representing the best interests of artists in calling for such measures,” UK musician Billy Bragg writes in an article for the Guardian, dealing with the topic. According to Bragg the music industry is trying to blame ISPs for a ‘problem’ that is not as easily solved as it would first appear.
“Never mind that this is a shameful attempt to pass responsibility on to another sector of industry, the question remains whether or not such measures will have the desired effect. Technology has so far stayed ahead of enforcement. Any unauthorised filesharers who fear being caught out can simply encrypt their exchanges,” Bragg writes.
He further claims that it is sometimes hard for fans to find DRM-free music anywhere else than on file-sharing networks. The demands of music fans have changed with the emergence of the Internet, but the music industry has failed to offer decent alternatives thus far.
“The Featured Artist Coalition is opposed to copyright infringement, but we recognise that, if technology allows people to access music for free, they will take advantage. The next generation of music fans may no longer want to pay for music, but they are still hungry to hear it. The challenge to the industry is to find ways to monetise their behaviour.”
“Clearly, some form of P2P subscription service is the way forward, if only because it provides the most convenient way for consumers to access music,” Bragg argues.
Eventually the labels might have to give up the distribution component that has been at the core of their business for years on end. This paints an uncertain future for the labels and that might be one of the main reasons why they are so resistant. Or to put it in Bragg’s words;
“Yet for the major labels, the success of such an initiative would mean the end of their control over the distribution of music. Is this the real reason why they seem determined to do everything they can to clip the wings of the fledgling digital industry before it can fly?”
Previously: Top 10 Most Pirated Movies on BitTorrent
Next: Top 10 Most Pirated TV Shows on BitTorrent
82 Responses
Nice =)))
I’m Lovin it.
Up The Irons!
Score, hopefully the BBC won’t be able to show such a pro-copyright view on this. Neutral my arse…
This is great!
A perfect example of evidence for the belief that the major labels only care for themselves and their own profits.
I slightly disagree with Mr. Braggs’ statement about subscription p2p, but that’s just me being an anti-copyright filesharing pirate. Aside from that minor bit, I loudly applaud the FAC for this shout of “OBJECTION!”
Long live torrents! A bit hard to say at the moment but a phrase I hope will ring supreme in te coming months!
Come and join the short and easy game mybrute:
http://burpnassker.mybrute.com
We are not alone. We have friends.
Donations to the artist are the only way digital media will be purchased. Certain torrents are starting to pop up with links to the artists website with such things.
Heh interesting to read that… I was always wondering that not many artists really voice their view on the meter…
They are not shore? They are pressured by labels? They are pressured by fans?
I want to hear more actual artists speaking about those problems not MPAA/RIAA/labels and their bullies… Ouh I mean lobbies tough there is not much of a difference except for tools and stage…
Now that’s nice news, finally we see that not all artists “want” what the lobby companies do “for them”…
Nice to see new allies in the battlefield of copyright…
I would be more then happy to pay the artist directly for their music. Unfortunately, that is something the record labels are not going to allow. Being allowed to pay an artist directly cuts out the middle man.
One band that indie produced a CD has this to say about the costs: Total cost to produce our CD (studio time plus mastering, reproduction, artwork, etc) was roughly $2500 initially. The majority of that was for recording. We sold the first 1000 CD’s for $5 and easily recouped our investment. The next run of 1000 CD’s only cost us $800. They’re nice CD’s, too — 2 color printing on the CD itself, 6-page foldout, with full color printing on the booklet and tray card. Enough room for lyrics for all *30* songs we put on there.
Bands need more control over their music such as the above example. Cutting out the record label takes a minimum of $5 off a CD. Which makes it much easier for a poor fan to buy. They also need to setup a digital distribution for themselves. For those who don’t want to pay for all the extras that come with a store bought CD. I see no need to have a physical copy bought from a retail outlet. If I am worried about a crash I can burn my own CD’s or copy my music to an external. More artists need to take a stand against against the industry and show solidarity with their fans.
Just goes to show that the recording industry does not care about the artists; they are just fighting to preserve profit.
http://www.howtodividebyzero.com/2009/05/18/artists-defend-file-sharers/
#11 Has it bang on. Its the record labels not the musicians that want copy-write enforcement. The musicians make their music so people can listen and enjoy. Labels are the ones looking for the most profit.
“In an attempt to have their voices heard, a group of leading musicians have started their own lobby group, the Featured Artists Coalition (FAC). The group includes members such as Robbie Williams, Billy Bragg, Radiohead, Iron Maiden and Travis, and aims to correct music labels and lobby groups that claim to act in the best interest of artists.”
These people will receive donations from me should I download music from them in the future (and like it!)
Good initiative
i wish i could go to one of these battles and watch and eat popcorn with big grin on my face lol. with a t-shirt saying fu rich jerks
Bravo!
I hope for a world where each artist is able to represent them selves on the internet, giving their music for free, But letting users donate, click on ads, and go to their concerts to bring in money.
Its been proven time and time again that giving your music away for free only increases your profits. And the people that don’t buy/donate usually would just download it anyway.
At least artists are coming and speaking up about this.
http://torrentino.net
The Iron Maiden rocks ofc
they should set up their own torrent site with donation button under each artists torrent 90% to the artist 10% to the torrent site for operations costs.
Gets the music out there and it cuts out the record label.
The price of cds and what not are far too high id atleast like to know what % the artist makes from their sales.
Ps they should do what they did in the 60s and 70s and overtour :P a few shows a night never hurt
At least this new distribution model will filter out the hacks from the true Artists. Either way originality wins! and the loser is the middle man.
“Yet for the major labels, the success of such an initiative would mean the end of their control over the distribution of music. Is this the real reason why they seem determined to do everything they can to clip the wings of the fledgling digital industry before it can fly?”
They just NOW figured it out?!!
The very existence of these media industry lobby groups are based on this very premise….total monopoly of distribution. They lose that, they lose the reason to exist. Nothing more, nothing less.
They don’t care how the distribution is done, as long as they have total control of it, simple as that. Vinyl, cassette, CD, VHS, DVD, and so on and so on….they resisted each new technology ONLY because they didn’t initially have control over it. But once they got a grip on them, they chain it down with a vengeance, making it exclusively theirs, and theirs alone.
BitTorrent and P2P in general is just another technology that they have YET to embrace….but when they do(eventually), they’re gonna chomp down on it like a pitbull with a bone, ready to snap at anybody that comes near it.
At first I hated the labels, Greddy bloodsucking parasites. But as time goes on, artists are still sighing contracts with them. More and more, I don’t just hate the labels, but I hate the idiot bands that enable the bloodsucking labels. Its been proven over and over and over that you can make money giving out your music free if it’s any good.
The only reason to sign with a big label nowadays is because you think you will get enormously rich. Heck, maybe you will. But that just means you’re in it for the money, not the music.
If they would just come up with a model that allowed a massive list of songs to be available from one source at the right price, that would help. There is just no arguing that. You can’t.
Now, if the price is wrong (bitch) and the music collection isn’t large enough (from only one label for example – which is just retarded) then it’s not going to be anymore successful then sources that have already attempted it.
The labels should work together and create a service with all of their music, where we can download single songs for the right price. That will be successful done right and that could also create an acceptable profit.
To add on to what I just said. If the service allowed single song downloads AND entire album downloads, people would be interested at the right price. A half ass job won’t do it. One artist’s album shouldn’t be available as only an album and not individual songs from that album. Then vice versa for another artist, creating a cluster fuck of laziness and only partially doing it right.
Once when why i was a young lad, there used to be this thing called a tape player. We even used to make mixed tapes( phun intended) i thin we considered dusting off our tape players :)
The only thing corporate suits represent is preserving their greed and power throughout the world. Artists are just a commodity, a thing to be abuse to get the most money out of it.
It is kind of Funny…if you created a website that ONLY accepted submissions from artists that wanted to showcase their tunes then add revenue would be distributed to them…I am not paying 1$ for a single track that I will listen 1 or 2 times…radio or Sat is great plus in Canada you can still download free and place on your MP3…
Well, I think the middle men (RIAA) should get out of the business and retire and let the artists and their managers promote them to top spots…\
Sorry, Further I was in NY the other day and for the fun of it, I looked to see about open network wireless connections…people do it for free to help travelers…so if what they are saying is that a traveler downloads a TV show from cable and that the person that they were connected to gets disconnected…that is absurd…I think once something hits the airwaves that is is in the public domain…I pay for full sat connection but always watch commercial free torrents….I am paying for the shows so I am not breaking the law….
as a creative, eccentric musician, i firmly believe that this whole situation reinforces a kind of status quo… point being that the fringe artists who make strange music are more likely to fall by the wayside.
people will donate “as long as it’s good”, which means even idie, metal, punk, alternative, etc. bands have to play music that’s watered down and “mainstream” enough for their respective genres.
the artists in that coalition have ideas about music distribution that are more interesting than their actual music. what does that say?
also, touring is stressful. overtouring is ridiculous if it’s constant, or even frequent. people that want more and more and more and more out of the bands they like obviously don’t understand what it’s like to be a musician in a band.
a long term band is a constant maintenance of relationships and power shifts, and the current shift in music kind of threatens the lives of most bands (not the “popular” ones who might have a fighting chance to stay that way).
#24 You mean like, Amazon? Itunes? People would still pirate it if the alternative is free.
#23 I totally agree with you. FAC is just like a union to promote their interest on their behalf. Like the labor union in Detroit where the industry no longer be able to support companies to sustain a healthy balance and finally has to collapse.
Music subscription doesn’t work. Never has. Never will. It’s one of the hardest failing ideas anyone has ever come up with, but for some reason it’s really popular. I guess people have a short memory.
The real way forward is this:
Take the iTunes business model, now remove the RIAA’s influence. Presto!
The answer is isn’t the ten millionth failed incarnation of music subcription, the answer is that.
I don’t think donations it’s a real solution to get paid, people don’t donate enough, but in the worst case scenario artist will have to have a second job to pay for the first and in the best scenario people start selling merchandise and making more tours and theather.
Maybe this is a lesson that the new generation needs to learn, things cost something, everything in the world have a cost or human or financial cost.
I don’t like the MAFIAA and I’m the first one to say anywhere that I’m not buying anything to patronage them in any way but that is because I don’t like what they are doing with civil rights. I don’t have griefs with people who make ridiculous amounts of money, I don’t care if people are rich or poor and if I can, I pay for it or if I cannot, I search for alternatives. I don’t believe in taking what is from others and I try my best to respect others and their property but I really don’t feel like stealing when I’m downloading a TV show I never had to pay for a TV show before why should I start now? why people pay for cable when they have TV for free? Maybe because there is a certain value to it and maybe this shows that even whith the free option there are still people willing to pay for services that offer them something that free cannot no need to trumple my civil liberties to enjoy more revenues.
Right on!
Well if there was a torrent site that had 5$ monthy fee and all music made under certain groups, I could actually pay that much.
Also they could allow you to upgrade to add free for additional 10$ a month, and/or get some additional bonus (like able to dl an album/songs 2 days before the public release) for 5$ more.
Also a Donation button.
If labels could just get their heads out of their cd piles and see that with this and the removal of their funding of lobby groups, they could actually make profit.
Up the irons indeed! :)
As a huge Maiden fan (I own all Dickinson CDs and DVDs) I am happy to see that one of my favorite bands is actually on the side of their fans.
it is very good
http://www.3istgah.com
eh, that Billy, he’s alright him ;)
I completely agree with what has been said in that article..
i pay for megaupload/rapidshare premium accounts so i can download pretty much all i want. sounds to me like a great business model. I don’t have to pay for every seperate thing I download (cough STEAM cough). The entertainment industry should look at this model, a monthly subscription and unlimited downloads during that month or something similar. I mean, many people (myself included) are hypocritcal, saying prices are too high, and yet willing to pay for MU/RS.
I’m getting a little bored with the ‘evil record company’ perspective. The reason they exist primarily is because of their expertise in marketing and distribution. Doesn’t matter how good the artist, if you don’t hear it on the radio, or be able to find it easily in stores they’ll never get their music out there. Let’s be honest, most musicians build their career on trying not to worry about the ‘business’ side of things and haave been happy to take a back seat.
What’s happened over the last few years is that both marketing and distribution have been usurped by the internet. The record labels primary functions are being superseeded and they’re doing all they can to cling on. Can’t blame them, they are running a business after all.
In a free market though business models that don’t work die out, but for some reason they’ve been able to convince everyone that that musn’t be allowed to happen and that draconian laws that governments wouldn’t dare try to pass seem to now to be seriously considered and in some countries passed.
Funny how the BBC spends most of it’s time being slated for it’s outmoded licence payer funding, but it increasingly seems to me to be a shining example of the kind of financial model that works. The music industry, or movie studios, resist that model because they know however you divide the money up they will never again achieve the kind of super profits they enjoyed in the 60’s, 70’s and 80’s when they had an iron grip on access to media.
Oh, and one more thing. Everyone’s right about music subscription not working. That’s because it has too narrow a remit.
The BBC model says, ‘if you own a TV you must pay the licence fee’. The equivalent could be ‘if you have an internet connection you pay a licence fee’. Once you do that every piece of music, every movie download is free.
What money goes to who, regional rights and all the other legal issues of course would be a complete nightmare to fix. But they do have to be fixed, and soon.
Definitely good news! This is one of the best ways to show that the recording industry is not the same as the music industry!
Try a great torrent search engine:
http://www.pirlog.com/
i’m glad there are some artists that can see the foley of the route the recording industry etc want to take. i can also see problems for the artists that take this stance. the recording companies and anti-piracy organisations are going to be most displeased with the attitude and do what ever they can to discredit those artists and make it as difficult as possible for them to record and release any material. it will be a case of ‘do what we say, when we say, how we say’ etc or severly damage/lose your career!!!
See that, even the artists know what going on out there!
privacy-center.de.tc
Anti-Piracy n0bs vs Everyone Else
IVE READ EVERY SINGLE POST
heres the truth
ART is created as a mental process of an artist that he/she/IT wishes ot be shared
that they get compensation is and should not be the motivation.
It cheapens what and why you do it and the wrong ideas come forth.
In what century will we learn that art and entertainment should be free? PERIOD. Whats happening now is the ultimate drain on the last vestiges of the capitalism extreme of the USA and look at how well they are dealing with it? No one in the next two life times can enjoy ANYTHING MADE FREELY, without extreme costs involved.
Lessen innovation, lessons creativity.
AND THE SIGN SAID EVERBODY WELCOME COME IN NEAL DOWN AN PRAY
but when they passed around a plate at the end of it all , i didnt have a penny to pay….
So i got me pen and papaer and made up my own little sign
I said thank you lord for thinking bout me
im alive and doing fine
Sign sign every where a sign barking up the scenery, breaking my mind , do this dont do that ,can’t you read the sign.
I want some of what *48 is smoking…yeah
The Music Industry (not the small people that do it because they love it) has ripped off both Artists and Consumers since it’s conception, why should it be surprised that nobody cares anymore.
The Model May Change but The MAdness Will Remain……..
http://akf4ever.com/
With such friends, who needs enemies?! Hope to see this coalition grow rapidly!
brb; signing up
As of 2009, out of a 13€34 cd (without value-added tax, which is around 20% in Europe):
- Distributor gets 5.18€ (39%)
(Wallmart, Amazon, Supermarket…)
- Label gets 3.82€ (29%)
(OMGZ DEY TAKE OUR JOBS!)
- Producer gets 2.59€ (19%)
(OMGZ MY SWIMMING POOL MADE OF GOLD)
- Singer/Band gets 1.17€ (9%)
- Author gets 0.29€ (2%)
- Composer gets 0.29€ (2%)
So, you see who gets the big money.
The point though is singers & bands don’t own factories to make cds, lorries and people to drive them to the shops which they also don’t own, nor do they employ people to put the product on the shelves or negotiate deals to get their product prominently placed on the shelf. All this infrastructure costs. Let’s stop being naive and comlaining about ‘the man’ taking profits from poor impoverished artists.
If artists spent as much time managing their affairs as they do in rehab they’d realise that there has never been a better time for cutting out the middle man and dealing direct with the public.
All the focus though seems to be about recreating the pre-internet environment and is more self-delusion than good business principle.
Well done!
In the digital world data is like air you just can’t stop everybody from inhaling it LoL
I wouldn’t mind buying a perfectly ripped CD or VINYL converted to FLAC for ~$5 if the money goes directly to the artist & those who have worked hard for it…
@54 wow … how did you know?
Wise words there from Mr Bragg on technical enforcement, although he’s slightly over simplified it in his article. It’s encryption when combined with the use of one or both of trusted connections and ‘innocent’ intermediaries that will completely stymie the record industry. That will be the endgame in many countries, with the record industry losing.
The next requests from the entertainment industry would then have to be for the direct interference in all citizen-to-citizen communication on the Internet and a severe restriction on the use of encryption. In a country like the United States, this is doomed to failure, with such communication being constitutionally protected. In a country like the UK, it’s not so cut and dried. There isn’t the absolute legal protection, but such a gross invasion and restriction of free speech would be about as popular as politicians’ second home allowances. Free speech is protected at the European Union level and it would be hoped that the EU would ensure that all those resident in a Union country remain protected. There are countries with repressive regimes, such as Burma, where encryption is effectively outlawed. That leaves countries in the middle, such as Australia, where the government has had grand designs for heavy technical regulation of the Internet, but isn’t 100% certain about it all.
To the people who say that you MUST get a licence if you own a TV…
You don’t – if the TV is not connected to an aerial, tuned in or connected to a set top box. It’s perfectly legit to connect it to a games console / DVD player etc without a licence.
Same for if you use a DVB-T/S receiver with your hi-fi for digital radio.
Also concerning itunes :
0.99€ song -> 0.29 for itunes & 0.70 for label
artist gets 0.09 from label
Now i think you understand why those mafia boys don’t want to get their income cut to 0 by challengers or even self-distribution.
http://www.pcinpact.com/link.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fstatic.pcinpact.com%2Fpdf%2Fdisque_budget.xls
in french, sorry
Subscription models do work in some instance. In Canada their is something called SOCAN which all businesses and radio stations subscribe to so that they can play music in public areas. I think it is like pennies a month per “seat” but you can see the SOCAN (Society of composers authors and music publishers)…If you have a license you have right to listen and play any music in the world at any time.
It is more for businesses but still every business that plays music in the store has to have this license….
Also in Canada, you pay a tarrif for all blank media and recording device because when the first recorders came out, the music industry tried to first ban them, then forced the coutry to change the laws so that the musicians got a share of money for every blank tape (now CD’s DVD’s, MP3’s etc) regardless of what the blank media or recorder was used for because they convinced the government that anyone that used blank media was just for copying their music illegally….hence why we have laws that allow us to share…not a legal expert, but it is working pretty nicely….too bad most of the for pay services from the US block Canadian IP’s so we have to go to free services to watch TV shows….unless you TIVO it…
http://arstechnica.com/media/news/2009/03/should-artists-get-12-or-50-royalties-from-itunes-sales.ars
It’s not good enough to just offer a subscription service. Typically the existing subscription services come heavily laced with DRM, which expires the mp3 once the subscription runs out.
We need NAPSTER, with a fee, without DRM, without limits, for $9.99 per month. End of story, put a fork in every other idea. Indy bands could sign up and earn a % of total income from this NAPSTER based off % of their songs that were downloaded.
Record Companies are the Medieval Castles of the Twentieth Century, they will be viciously defended, roaming the dark forests of the internet, charging all people who enter for the chance of maybe wanting to hear their imprisoned artist warble a feeble song from the tower, but will eventually crumble and die, to become tourist attractions for virtual tourists, ice cream please!
http://akf4ever.com/
my main concern is that musicians (most of us are small-time ones, not earning very much with music already) still have to pay rent and bills.
we have to have regular jobs.
the large majority of employers aren’t cool with you leaving for a two month tour (which is where music money is) while being allowed to keep the job when you return.
so, as a musician, the choice is this: “do i tour, lose the job, look for new work when i get home, and then do it again in a few months? AND, do i continue this lifestyle until i’ve eventually destroyed consistent work history and can’t get a decent-paying job because of it? where does this leave me in 20 years?”… OR “do i stop touring so i can actually continue taking care of myself?”
a musician’s lifestyle isn’t completely about you, the consumer. donations won’t add up enough to take care of most lesser known 4 or 5 member bands that account for the overwhelming majority of music.
these are issues at hand which generally are not considered by consumers. what’s more?- most of you could care less. you can’t donate to every band you like, right? you can’t just give all you money away! that would be a bad decision, obviously.
a musician saves from a regular job to buy expensive equipment and save for tour necessity after leaving livlihood in the form of a job behind… oh, wait… the music’s free! it’s like small musicians ARE actually giving their money away… well, unless you’re playing bland crap that has mass appeal.
we all know mainstream=mass appeal=bland crap, right? for any business.
headache.
@broke
So how do you gain new fans? As a small time musician you get very little to no radio air time, you don’t tour etc… If you embrace the filesharing culture and use it as a marketing tool then you might get enough fans to make it worthwhile to go on tour – and actually make enough money to live on until you tour again! If not – maybe it is time you stopped trying to be a musician?
I’m sorry to break it to you but if you don’t have enough gigs to live of as a musician you probably shouldn’t be playing professional at all and much less giving up your day job it’s not sound judgment.
Finally. If people will pay to use a service to get the music illegally, they’ll pay the same to get a DRM-free version from a subscription service hosted by the Music companies. Yes, keep the hard copies on the self (after all, not everyone has a computer) but lower costs. If you can’t beat us, join us you music mongers!
I’m glad some artist got together and formed FAC.
The way forward IMO, is to have every artist set up their own webpage, and also open a Paypal account and have links for it on their page. This way, payments can be made directly the artist, into an account they can personally control and monitor.
As well as this, an iTunes like model and physical copies need to exist. There can be a place for the middleman in all this, if they argee to not exploit artists income etc.
Perhaps some of us should write to FAC, and create some dialogue and suggest ideas to fix this problem for the better.
I remember a book I read a while back (Little Brother) They had a service called Indienet, provided by their isp (included with their internet) bands added their own music and then received a portion of the profits, based on their relative amount of downloads, no one pays but bands still get paid sounds good to me.(the isp’s motive is more customers b/c people want to use the service)
@rabbit80, i’m an american who has been playing music for about 15 years. i’ve put out 12 albums, 16 7″s, handfuls of comp tracks, singles, etc, by 6 different bands. i’ve toured the united states coast to coast 9 times, and i’ve toured europe and the uk 3 times.
the bands have dedicated fans and avid supporters.
i understand what it means to split what money is made touring. not much is there in the end, because after all, it costs alot to put those things together.
there is a threshold at which point a band hopefully pays its touring debts off and you make a band profit. and then the profit is split amongst members. in most cases, this doesn’t leave much of a personal budget to live from.
i’m not concerned about getting rich here, but it seems like there should be a little more where there isn’t much.
would you do your job for free? just find a second job to cover it?
“Clearly, some form of P2P subscription service is the way forward, if only because it provides the most convenient way for consumers to access music,” Bragg argues.
YES… they finally understand it… just let us pay a certain amount every month through our ISP’s so we can download our stuff!!!
Desde España apoyamos toda iniciativa destinada a derrotar a las multinacionales de la cultura.
Saludos http://www.internautas.org/
Now if only the IFPI and RIAA bastards would listen to them!
http://thepiratebay.org/torrent/4904885/We_re_All_The_Pirate_Bay_RAP_REMIX
Of course. Artists know “piracy” is good to promote their work.
@broke:
Did you already tried Jamendo or magnatune?
http://www.jamendo.com/en/
http://magnatune.com/
Jamendo and Magnatune exist already support the new age even if it is not that good right now LoL
Paying artists for music is cool. Paying the “suits” for music isn’t!
And I thought Robbie Williams was a twat. I take it all back.
17 references to this post
Responses are closed
All remaining responses will continue to be archived. Use the TorrentFreak forums if you want to discuss something.