Firstly, we have the Baker. Let’s assume that the Baker is the sole creator of the bread. All tools, ingredience, staff, etc.. Used in the process of creating and selling this bread represent some level of industry input. They all need financial support to maintain sustainability.

Secondly, we have corner-man and his replication device. This replication device has numerous functions, and also costs to maintain. Corner-man buys the Baker’s bread, and copies its condition quite accurately, even the label remains intact.

The third factor, is comprised mainly of social networking, for lack of a better definition.

‘Yummy’, he thinks, and begins to give it out to people who are perhaps curious as to what this ‘yummy’ bread tastes like. He even recommends it to his friends.

‘Oh, you going to get some bread?’

‘Yup. Want any?’

‘Nah, but check out The Baker, he makes some tasty bread. In fact, here have some of this. Tastes nice, right?’

‘That is pretty nice. I will check The Baker out. Laters.’

Others, just out to get some free bread – never planned to buy any such bread of any such baker in the first place.

However, more and more people are becoming aware of this ‘yummy’ bread. And more people begin to try it. And more people visit The Baker’s store… As well as more freeloaders.

For some, it was merely free bread, to others, it opened up a doorway and they now visit the Baker’s store every so often to try some new types of bread.

‘What’s that corner-man giving out?’

Curiosity, hype, common interest… They all play a part.

Over time, The Baker grew in popularity, and as a direct result, so did the amount of replications; Suppy and Demand.

The Baker wondered if he was losing customers, but most of all, money… No, he ASSUMED that he WAS losing money.

Rather than adjusting to this ‘replication revolution’, The Baker gets rid of the corner-man, and instead of using the replication device himself, The Baker destroys it, and continues to work in the same way that he always did, or that’s what he thought…

The corner-man played a vital part in the growth of The Baker, unknowlingly to The Baker.

The Baker’s consumer base drops, and he blames everybody with a replication device.

The Baker, angry, confused, and fed up with having the least financial stability of The Store, despite working the hardest, looks to other Bakers for help.

Him and the other Bakers form a group, and attack the establishment behind the replication devices.

These replication devices are central to the daily function of countless individuals and corporations.

‘Punish them for eating copies of our bread!’

‘How do you suggest we do that, without discriminating against those who don’t do it intentionally, or at all?’

‘We’re protecting our rights!’

‘Ok… And how are we to distinguish your bread from other items?

‘By size.’

‘And what if somebody copied something the same size as bread, and we punish them for it?’

‘I like strawberry cake.’

Basically, my point is that fundamental design, and social networking are being completely ignored.

What the FAC are proposing is plain damn idiotic, and extremely costly.
And unless they’re planning on paying the ISPs to regulate this bullshit, it’d be completely counterproductive to everyone who used/maintained the service.

I mean, honestly… What the fuck?!

It’s all well and good arguing for or against filesharing, but the FAC’s actual proposition is just fucking retarded. :/

I said before, and i’ll say again. It’d require an enormous amount of manpower to regulate such a system based on numerous factors to consider. It isn’t, and will never be, as simple as most people believe it to be.

I respect a group who are (seemingly) ‘fighting’ for their ‘rights’. But at least do some basic research before you propose something that would throw the internet into a state of absolute… God, i can’t even think of a word. It’s just beyond retarded.

I’m embarrassed for you, you seem terribly ill, like the industry, which is making everyone sick.

After reading most of the comments on this article, I felt the need to add my two cents. Addressing Lily Allen’s behavior, I have no idea why TF even bothered to write about it. She is obviously attempting to attract attention for her cause, and failed to consider all of the possibilities. That is no reason to brutally insult here or pay her any mind whatsoever for that matter.

I find it refreshing to see people involved in music attempting to find creative solutions to file-sharing, but slowing Internet traffic is not a viable enforcement tactic. Many of the more security-conscious file-sharers already work behind certain types of protection, rendering it nearly impossible to identify them. As these are highly likely to be primary distributors, I do not see how your methods would stop them. We are already on the brink of mainstream underground file-sharing as it is. Aside from that, the exclusive focus on music seems inappropriate. In all honesty, other media is pirated as well.

Aside from the obvious lure of illegal downloading, many young people feel that harming “the industry” is a good thing. The Industry has done much to foster this idea with ridiculous lawsuits, threats, and use of lobbies to attempt the passage of draconian laws. An unbiased observer would probably have to admit that this industry doesn’t look any more reasonable than the radical parts of the file-sharing community which they condemn. Of course, none of that honestly matters to me.

As for file-sharing itself, it would certainly be ethically questionable at best. To many of us, however, that is a moot point. Personally, I take what I know that I can get away with, as the same is done to me by society as a whole. Make it more difficult, and we will simply adapt. Not to sound unreasonable, but we can do it. You can’t stop us. This is the way that it has been and will be.

To sum it up, we do not all lie to ourselves. We know very well what we are, and we do not care. Much like you, we look out for ourselves. Lets all just be honest: We are similar to thieves, although not completely. You are a victim of a sort. Despite all of the other injustices perpetrated by business and government, these are the simple facts. The only difference here is that there are a lot of us, and the common man does not care about your agenda because of his failed perception.

Like, I said, the analogy wasn’t perfect. I’m not really sure how to fit the artists in…

I’ll just make a separate point about the artists.

I honestly don’t know that much about how the artists usually get paid – maybe they get a cut – I don’t know.

But I’m pretty sure the amount of money artists get for their work from their recording companies is small, and that they have to do live tours and sell shirts for money. So, correct me if I’m wrong, but I don’t think that piracy makes much of a difference in an artist’s salary.

But you see- that doesn’t matter anyway – how much the artist WOULD make if not for piracy. The point is that lots of people do lots of things that make record companies lose money. They give bad reviews of albums, they hear them on the radio, so they know not to waste money on albums, and so on. Record companies should NOT have the power to limit how we use our own property in order to get more money. Capitalism should have no affects on people’s inherent rights.
Wouldn’t it sound insane if they tried to ban keyboards because they could potentially be used for giving albums or movies bad reviews? Same thing goes for people’s internets. Their internets is theirs, the 1′s and 0′s that are the music or movie are theirs. So why should COMPANIES be allowed to punish people for making them allegedly lose money?

Why I am not surprised she’s become the RIAA’s little whore as well.

Hopefully this will prevent her from taking a dump on any more Clash songs …

Why I am not surprised she’s become the RIAA’s little whore as well.

Hopefully this will prevent her from taking a dump on any more Clash songs …

the now is engagement free from material restrictions and contracts

carpe diem

Magic!

I had a couple of other points too:

In response to Bobe-On @211, I’m happy to debate whether your pay off @ 200 “I’d hear you bark-in-the-park for that” was a pun on the name of my home town, Barking, as revealed @ 192

and to Name @ 210, it’s interesting to note that your analogy features the kids, the music and the douchebag industry, but has no mention of the artists. I can see why you’d want to dismiss my songwriter analogy, which has the artists at its centre.

On of the problems we have with the music industry is that the labels insist that one download equals one sale. Everyone knows that’s bull, but it allows them to inflate their losses to £200 million. Last week, one of the big British ISP’s, BT, estimated that to suppress illicit downloading would cost about £1 million per day – £365m per yer.

Why don’t the ISPs just give the labels £200m and let the kids get on with their P2P, saving themselves £165m and a whole lot of trouble?

There is no evidence to suggest this at all. She has had her issues with her label, but she’s also sold well over 80 million albums, even at only L pound per album that’s L80million British pounds alone and there’s no evidence she’s given it all away, either, so it seems she feels she’s earned it.
(and I’d agree)

It’s reported in Wikipedia that she, too, has objected to “unauthorized use” of her work in elections, indicating her belief that the creator/agents should retain control. I’d agree with that, too.

What point were you making?

About two years ago I started ‘pirating’. I downloaded most of the TV shows I couldn’t watch because I worked at night and movies I couldn’t see due to other commitments. Eventually my HDD filled up and I stopped. For 8 months.

In these 8 months I purchased a grand total of two CDs. Both from live shows in small venues from the bands directly. I didn’t even buy DVDs as gifts for people!

Now that I have a shiney new 1TB HDD and working DVD burner I’m back to my ‘pirating’. I am trying to find active torrents of those seasons of shows that I missed and I’m not the only one with a story like this.

Forget the old concept that 1 download = 1 sale, its false and it ruins your credibility as an argument when it has no factual backing.

The “system”—however you define it–has developed along these lines because it is the most honest and accurate mirror of human nature in existence today. The “shareholder model” is embraced and eagerly sought the world over–especially in countries who style themselves “Socialist”, because it gives a chance to everyone and the majority (but apparently you) understands and appreciates that. I’m not saying it’s right. I’m just saying it IS because humans are as we are. if we were different, the system would be different.

Your argument isn’t with the shareholder model, h33t. It’s with our nature that created it. Human nature seems painful to you.

I carefully read your angry words “the shareholder model makes me sick”…… and felt a bit sorry for you.

While I’m waiting to be moderated – must have been something I said – I do have to agree with RM. Is this a forum for discussion or just a circle-jerk for dittoheads?

Holdger, if you can’t develop and present persuasive arguments here why disconnecting artists from their revenue stream (but still taking their products) is the fair path forward for everyone, good luck with governments and the artists themselves. “Shut off your trap” is impressive, indeed.

“You can’t stop us” is going to be the punch line of a bad joke someday. Well that……. and “James Holdger.”

We’re all sick and tired of your pointless arguments. You’re entitled to have your opinion and we’re entitled to have ours, live with it and get the hell out of here.

It’s not that if you continue to talk you’re right. We’ll continue to have our opinion. We’ll just ignore what you’ll say, because, as I said, we’re all sick and tired of you.

So, please, do all of us a favour, and shut off your trap.

Thank you very much indeed in advance.

Because without the brick and mortar baker, the street corner guy has nothing to give away. He has nothing more than an empty P2P app, and that’s the hypocrisy. No one here is against fair competition, indeed, that’s what makes better bakers. It’s the intellectual property theft and no-cost copying that makes the street corner guy possible in the first place, and inevitably puts out the brick and mortar guy until neither have anything to offer.

Bobe-On’s suggestion “Become a butcher or a candlestick maker.” is classic, priceless pirate think. In the pirates world, we’ll only pay for meat and candles until we can figure out a way to pirate those too. So confused, so unjust, so shortsighted.

What the f%&k? Does it make you feel powerful to say that? Stop bullying little girls and make a sensible point.

Name,

What was interesting about your analogy was the fact that there was no role for the artist/creator in your vision of what is going down. You see only yourself, the music and the douchbag industry. Might this be part of the problem we have in trying to understand each other?
It certainly explains why you weren’t happy with my analogy, which focused solely on the artist/creator.

Bobe-On,

You want to debate whether or not your pay off line on post 200 ‘bark-in-the-park’ was a pun on the name of my home town, Barking, Essex?

Happy to do that.

h33t,

I can assure you that I do not ignore the customer relationship model. Most savvy artists are using it to some degree. It allows us to carry on promoting ourselves between albums. And it works. Young people are turning up at my gigs and they know the words to my songs. How’s that happened? Part of it has to be down to P2P, cause they can’t hear me on Radio One or read about me in the NME anymore.

I’m encouraged that you endorse the notion of sponsorship for artists, as it shows that your community recognise that making records costs money. If we could set up that artist-run combine, do you think the P2P community would support it?

You are quite right to state that the labels are squeezing artists like never before – and misrepresenting them too. Anyone seen UK Music’s ‘Falco’ ad in today’s Guardian? Some drunken musician’s midnight blog in which he whinges about his album being leaked. I fear it does nothing but damage our cause in the eyes of the public, another own goal by the big labels.

drug whore..

fail!

on the sponsorship issue: why would any relevant artist want to be sponsored with a record deal by the likes of EMI? i am not just talkin bout the pistols. they got worse over time, today they attack their customers, they are exposed as a greedy fat cat multi-national exploiting the poor, they are irrelevant! we fukin hate them. if you are an artist associated with that level of money grabbing bullshit we hate you too

we call it the 404 where multi-national corporations have lost contact with their markets because they are no longer relevant. the new bands of today are the “untouchables” because they dont want to be part of the toxic corporate establishment

it aint nothing to do with the movie industry. the problem with Follywood is they pander death and pain and destruction. by the age of 8 a child has seen 1,000+ ways a man can die because Follywood feeds off a smorgasbord of action tripe. the MAFIAA scum who paved a desert with gold to launder their racketeering revenue into movies is something else than music. however, the movie industry is identical to the music industry in that it is making record profits once again this year regardless of the complaints against filesharers

the issue for artists is they are being painted as a relatively simple commodity that can be substituted by other content and we all know that view is complete bullshit. there is nothing stronger than music to move and touch people. but the recording industry while making record profits is squeezing artists harder than ever before. just like the merchant bankers *wankers* who sold us all and then took our tax money for their bonuses, the music industry is squeezing both the comsumer and the artist for their own short-term enrichment. the shareholder model makes me sick

Or do you want a “debate” only where, when, how, and with whom you please?
Reminds me of Reasoned Mind… and the industry.

…You sure you’re Billy Bragg, or just playing games? :)

“I’m gonna tell all you fascists you may be surprised
The people in this world are getting organized
You’re bound to lose, you fascists are bound to lose…”

– lyrics, woody guthrie; music billy bragg

“Now…
Hear this
Pay attention to me
’cause I’m a rich white girl and it’s plain to see
i got every kind of thing that the money can buy
Let me tell you all about it
Let me amplify
I got DIAMONDS…
You heard about those
I got so many that I can’t close my safe at night in the dark
Lying awake in a sick dream”

– Money, by Annie Lennox,
signed member of FAC

Well looks like he’s boned because his quality/cost ratio is much worse than that guy’s. He’ll have to (OH NOES!!!) compete with the street-corner guy to make his living. The guy giving people his music for free on a street corner can do so if he wants. He can either wait out this business slump until the street corner guy gets hungry or change the way he does business to better fit the market.

LIKE THE RECORDING INDUSTRY.

Analogies don’t count as valid points. They are to help the reader understand a point, not to make one.

I’ll give you a good analogy.

There is a certain group of teens that like to hang out at an abandoned warehouse. They can do what they want there and nobody stops them. One day, a man sees that the teens are going in and out of this warehouse all the time. So he buys the land the warehouse is on, and puts a big wall around the whole place, with only one gate. He spruces the place up a bit and makes it a little safer. He stands at the gate with a concealed gun and charges the teens 20 bucks to get into his warehouse. Normally about 100 kids go there every night, but since he put the fee up, only about 75 go there. 25 of them don’t think it’s worth the money. So the next day, a kid really wants to go into the warehouse and have a good time but he doesn’t want to pay that douchebag 20 bucks to get in. He decides to have one of his friends pay 20 bucks to go in with a rope and throw the rope over the wall so the kid can climb the wall and get in. A couple more kids realize what’s going on, and to save 20 bucks, they climb the rope too. The Douchebag doesn’t notice the kids go in, but he does notice the amount of money he made. Before he put the wall up, there were at least a hundred kids there every night, so he thought he’d make 2000 bucks off them. When he only makes 1,500, he thinks something is wrong. So the next night he walks around the wall, and sees a kid sneaking in. The government’s laws say that the kid isn’t allowed to exist on his land unless he pays the 20 bucks, so the Douchebag takes the kid to court. He says that the kid is doing something terrible, that he isn’t just stealing from the Warehouse, that he’s stealing from teen entertainment. He looks at how much money he makes and concludes that the kid caused him to make only 1500 dollars instead of 2000 dollars that night. So (naturally) he sues the kid for 500,000 dollars, because all of the kids who “stole” from him need to be afraid. The government obliges because they’re tools and the Douchebag goes home 500,000 dollars richer. The kid’s entire family has to work their whole life in poverty to pay off the 500,000 dollars.

So… was that a necessary punishment?

I could go even farther with this analogy. One time, the Douchebag sees the receipt stuck to the rope, and finds out that the kid was using his grandmother’s rope to sneak into the warehouse. So he takes the grandmother to court and sues her 500,000 dollars. But you see, she has Alzheimer’s. She doesn’t even know what a rope IS. But because the kid used her rope she gets sued.

There’s a good analogy. To help you understand, The Douchebag is the RIAA, the warehouse is music, the kids are customers, and the kids who snuck in are pirates, and the rope is P2P, and the receipt is an I.P. address, and ‘teens having fun’ is music artists.

It’s obviously not perfect, but it covers the necessary areas.

You do know some of my stuff!

Why am I here? Because I don’t see the world in such black and white terms as you do.

“Bobe-On, Your incredible pun on the name of my home town has made me see the error of my ways!”

?
What pun and what home town?

” I now commit myself to the destruction of the music industry through file-sharing.”

Music needs no industry and never has. It will continue and be better off without it.
Huxterism may wane, purity, wax.

“That’s an example of irony, Bo. Thinking it’s okay to take other peoples work without paying then demanding payment for your own contribution, that’s hypocrisy.”

Those two cases are different, so I disagree. I’ll let you figure out why I think so.

“RM, I’m not convinced that stealing is the right word for what goes on with illicit file-sharing.”

RM seems to need no convincing, as intoxicated by his own sophism as he appears.

“Say you were a baker and one day your customers just stopped coming in and buying your wares. On investigation, you found that there was someone standing on the street corner, giving away cakes and bread for free. When you asked them why they were doing this, they just shrugged and said, ‘because I can’.

What would you expect the baker to do? Make better cakes? That won’t work because the guy on the corner will just copy them and give them away. Try chase the free vendor away? Or close up shop and sell t-shirts instead?”

What’s your industry already doing?
Do you have to be attached?
Is baking the only thing you can do?
Are you that at a loss?
I imagine those who bake work harder than some for less $. How much do/did you make? How about Annie Lennox?

For one, you may have answered your own question at the end.

Retrain, perhaps like the East Coast Atlantic cod fishers. Remember them? Real scarcity, as opposed to artificial.
Become a butcher or a candlestick maker.
It’s done all the time as wage-slave positions are axed, while others, blissfully unaware, fly from London to San Fran to get pumped on what they love.

Or find out how the baker can bake and give away. ‘Because I can’ might be enough for you, but it isn’t for me. I like to do my homework before I sign FAC memberships with charters that seem to involve threats to people’s rights and freedoms. Feedom.

If you are from the FAC, why are you even here wanting to discuss this, half-assed, at this stage of the game? Your lines already seem drawn:
“We the undersigned wish to express our support for Lily Allen in her campaign to alert music lovers to the threat that illegal downloading presents to our industry…”

YOUR industry.

If I find that our baker has a Star-Trek materializer (or whatever you call it), then the world has changed.
Then everything’s free– bread, candles, music, everything.

@h33t:
You wore out my mouse wheel. ;)

“…Brutality and unjust laws can not defeat us…
Money speaks for money, the devil for his own
Who comes to speak for the skin and the bone
What a comfort to the widow, a light to the child
There is power in a union…”
– Billy Bragg

What if the guy is a songwriter, spends all day long writing songs which he sells to performers for a flat fee, with no royalties – like in the old days of Tin Pan Alley. One day, he finds no-one wants to buy his songs because there is someone on the street corner, giving newly written songs away ‘because I can’.

Does he have to quit writing and start selling t-shirts then?

Thanks again for a thoughtful post.

I’m not 100% convinced by the sponsorship argument. I went to see the new band of an artist that I greatly admire and was a little put off when I discovered that they were sponsored by a high end clothing company. I want to be in the NME, not Tatler, fer Chrisakes.

A better model, which you allude to it in your post, would be artists sponsoring other artists, making money available to record in exchange for a short-term licence to a central, artist controlled combine – an association of artists working for artists as you put it.

I agree with your observation that people are buying more content. That is a big part of the problem the music industry faces. There are just so many more competitors for the attention of consumers. Like you, as I teenager, I spent most of my money on vinyl. My son has many more distractions to spend his money on. This is why I believe that there is no technical fix to the collapse of income that the music industry is facing: its not just file-sharing that is the problem. If they sink all the pirates, people will still spend more of their money on the latest of all those home based technological wonders that you listed. The Wii is simply not going back into the box.

A new business model is desperately needed, but again and again the industry has refused to allow legal P2P to happen. Why? My hunch is that they fear losing control over distribution.

One other question, when you say that consumers are spending hundred and hundreds on content, but it not reaching the music artists, is that true of all creatives, or is this just a music and movie business phenomena?

The guy on the street corner will eventually run out of money. You see, he sells material items, which one must pay to make. He needs to pay for dough and electricity or whatever. It’s a bad analogy because files are not material and cost nothing to copy.

But this is wrong in other ways. The industry has not suffered very much from piracy. It certainly hasn’t stopped all together, like the baker’s shop.

And the baker’s shop is tangible. It’s more than just a set of rules and a pile of money, like the music industry is; it’s a shop, selling goods. The music industry isn’t a shop. It’s a set of rules, basically. A stack of papers. All it is is copyrights and intellectual property. It makes money off the music that is there anyway.

The RIAA and MIAA don’t chase the free vendor away. They go up behind them and try to shoot them in the back of the head.

it is no surprise to me that by default the majority of people struggle with the economics of content distribution and the general public are simply no more than distastefully gleeful that they get something for free. the for free issue is the bugbear of bittorrent giving anti-p2p free wins but again the issue can be easily evaporated when the model is seen in practise. i have two master degrees in economic related disciplines and it was only then that i gave up my cushy day job and took a punt on an emerging technology well before it was understood even by myself. it is a complex subject not immediately understood when all we have known is scarcity of music. monopoly never helped anyone but the few and that is why it is illegal. when i was a child i spent all my pocket money on a vinyl single and that was all i could afford. now the kids dont have to spend all their money on paper and plastic (e.g. CD) but they sure as hell are spending it somewhere because today, compared with my grandfather who maybe bought a newspaper, we are spending more on media content than ever before. the average household has satellite HD TV, an xbox360, a PS3, a Wii, 4x mobile telephones, countless laptops and computers, a broadband subscription, visits to the cinema, plus the newspaper! what happened to the money for the artists? well somebody let them down badly but it sure as hell wasnt us because we are spending hundreds and hundreds on our content. only it just isnt reaching the music artists … go figure why and who is doing it to the artists. yes, the musician’s best friend the recording industry is killing music

there are some more myths that need demolishing. first is that the recording industry is in trouble. Branson, the father of the modern recording contract, moved on and bought (amongst others an airline) the national cable backbone of the UK. the ‘successful’ recording industry is today serving the digital backbone of the UK and i am sure there are parallels in other countries. there was a recent study in Australia that accounted the economic worth of filesharing, estimated at 65% of gross internet traffic, based upon the market demand for broadband and paying the salaries of a massive global industry

today we see the UK government proposing a 50 pence tax on broadband customers to further finance the roll-out of broadband services to all homes in the UK regardless of whether or not they want it or need it. they sure as hell have no idea of what it means when they do not already have a broadband connection but the government is committed to giving it to them regardless because of the benefits to the core digital industry. not forgetting that industry is financed by filesharers buying bandwidth. compound that with the fact the music industry had a record revenue year last year?

bittorrent is not yet mainstream and we have the situation of the great unknown both for consumers and artists alike. let’s look at historical precedent for clues on what is going to happen next. warez was the first ever content shared over the networks (that and porn) hosted by British Telecom engineers on bulletin boards hosted on government property that the government had no clue of. did warez suppress the software market? absolutely not and that is the second myth busted. correct me if i am wrong but the games industry is now bigger than the movie industry and opensource software is the business model of the future. significantly for the musician looking for a business model, games manfacturers already use the sharing model to publicise their product. you can download a RAZOR911 cracked game on bittorrent but if you want to play online and unlock 80% of the game then you must buy it. classic example of market segmentation and try before you buy. Microsoft can also not complain about the predominance of linux and opensource whereby you do not need to pay for any software because they have moved forward with their business model and sell dedicated consols that require a paid networked registration to participate in the full experience. interesting is that the PS3 despite being better hardware than the 360 cannot match the 360 for its dominance in terms of number of networked users and revenue. again a classic example of price market segmentation where he who can pay pays and he who cant or wont doesnt

the third myth is that existing copyright law can be extended to the internet. the internet bubble burst because we learned that data (aka information) has virtually zero economic value when widely disseminated. sure if you know something that can be protected and applied then you can profit from it. but we learned that the internet is nothing more than one big copy machine. servers copy to servers to repeaters to amplifiers to routers to browsers to computers everything digital is based on copying an infinite amount of times throughout the entire network. the ISPs got protection from prosecution simply because it was recognised that the system was one big copy machine. the consumer however is not so lucky as to have the automatic protection from government because … well you can think that one out yourself. point is the internet is systemically not going to work with any type of copyright legislation. it ios for the owner to proactively use technology to protect their content if they choose and DRM exists and works for Microsoft and games companies who value their product highly enough to pay the cost of managing a DRM system. for the recording industry they realise the economic value of their content on the internet is zero and they do not try to protect it with DRM. instead we get this erroneous attempt at legislation which we all know will be toothless. not only toothless but downright dishonest because the content is zero valued and they wont protect it themselves. the movement to legislate is a misplaced run-away-train financed by a cash bloated industry with so little intelligence they prefer to pay lawyers to attack consumers rather than innovate

the fourth myth is advertising revenue in the radio or internet scenario. at an average of 0.06 USD for one thousand impressions it is only the very biggest of sites that profit from advertising revenue, i estimate a site has to be within the top 3,000 in global traffic rank to pay for itself and salaries for the support team. beauty is the majority of torrent sites are run by volunteer moderators and fanatic admins who work for free. make no mistake, outside of the big 5 torrent sites nobody is getting rich. that is not to say a torrent site is not a relatively big draw for traffic, but if advertising income on a site that gets 40,000 visits per day or 10,000,000 hits per month doesnt pay a torrent admin a living wage considering all the content available then you can quickly realise that only the top artists are gonna get anything interesting from advertising revenue. so imagine if Madonna got 10,000,000 hits on her site per month you think she is gonna be happy with the income? do the sums. there simply isnt the cash floating about in the internet advertising scenario to be meaningfully translated into income for an artist. we are struggling to buy servers from the income and an artist sure needs more hardware than a website

however, there is a form of advertising which does work for media content and that is the sponsorship model. the tv soap Friends is an example of an advertising wrapper that made its money from its ability to attract consumers. take the advertising out of an episode of Friends and the content has no value it is but a vessel for the advertising revenue. those deals were done direct with the sponsors and eliminated the middle-man of the ad agency. whilst an artist may not be big enough on the scale of Friends to negotiate direct with a sponsor there is a need for a aggregator agency who can negotiate directly with sponsors on behalf of a collection of artists. something that FAC could do. this model would see a coalition of artists paid directly by a sponsor overcoming the issue of the low income shotgun advertising we see today from the internet advertising brokers. an association of artists working for artists? who would have thought it possible …

myth five: the filesharing epidemic can be regulated. technology already exists to take p2p into the dark where it is invisible to all an ISP can employ against it. all it takes is for a badly conceived regulation to drive it underground. this will not only circumvent the authorities but it will make them irrelevant. as irrelevant as the artists who cling to the old analogue business model (as you nicely put it). i was at a convention in Amsterdam (which Ernesto also attended) and i warned that the attack on thepiratebay would cause a technological and social backlash against the incumbents they would live to regret. you cannot imagine what resources are now being poured into designing new web systems to thwart the anti-p2p. the cost is not so much to us filesharers because we still get what we want. the cost is to the artists who are not in the new system, the artists who remain clinging to the old analogue model and miss the opportunities in their lifetime

the final myth to be busted (for today at least) as you say yourself the recording industry is NOT working in the interest of the artists. Prince and George Michael made their famous stands against the recording industry contract and the way they were exploited as young emerging artists later to feel the weight of the bad contract. you have it right that finance for independent content production is a media wide issue that needs urgently addressing. whilst the media cartel mantain the monopoly on finance for artists then indeed there is a problem

ok we understand how market segmentation opens up new markets and how filesharing works to increase market equity by providing hyper-exposure and new consumers. we understand that finance for artists needs to be solved. what is missing is an understanding of relationship marketing and how that works for an artist. we have the example of nine inch nails. what did they make from giving that album away for free? i might be wrong but i think it was $5 million and they didnt think it was enough. well slap me with a Mandy if $5 million isnt good enough but the point i make is that they started out right with their customers then broke it with a stupid comment when all they should have said is “thank you very muchly” and gone on to do it again when they might have reaped the benefits of the increased market equity the free issue had created

customer relationship management is the model used by opensource software houses. it means you get the software for free and there is also a community based around free support by the community. however, there is also a premium edition that costs money and comes with paid support. the consumer pays for a direct relationship with the development team and benefits from the relationship for all the reasons i dont need to list because it is endless and ultimately superior to the free version. the free software is also licensed only for free noncommercial use, so if a big commercial enterprise wants it then they pay a license fee

let’s put this into the context of an emerging artist. he sets himself up with a portal page on a high traffic site like mininova or jamendo (or myspace) and he starts propagating his torrents to every site and forum he can find. sooner rather than later he is gonna have several thousand downloads and his work gets out there where it is accessible and heard by a global audience. of course his alternative is not to do this and instead go try for a record contract. or he can do both. if the artist is well received then he will not only get popular but probably he will also get an offer of finance. there are plenty of people out there looking for talent, ask Simon Cowell the problem is there aint enough talent! on the relationship management front the artist makes available artifacts that can be purchased (merchandise, burnt CDs of his work etc). the artist offers fans membership of a private forum in which he regularily blogs and interacts with his consumers and i dont know what artists do behind closed doors but all that nasty stuff that fans love and want. membership comes with perks e.g. free concert tickets and backstage passes and the list is endless but it all depends upon the artist performing one crucial element which is engaging the customer. this model does NOT exclude a recording contract, it does not exclude commercial release or sponsorship or touring it does not exclude a big movie or tv show making a deal for the music. the sharing model enhances everything that has gone before with additional revenue streams

what is more, the artist is relevant and there is nothing like the big corporations for following the money and paying to be relevant by employing the right artists

i dont need to characterise filesharers more than we already know it is 100% of the youth and a fair proportion of the older digital natives. they have cash to spend and they love to spend it on what they like and they are accustomed to spending it online on digital content. suffice for me to finish this comment by criticising the recortding industry because they could have already done all this for their artists. but somehow it just wasnt worth it, the artists were just were not worth the investment and that is the rub. it is cheaper for them to cynically attack the consumer than to invest in the artist

there are hundreds of other models i can suggest but it does all rest upon artists taking the initiative. exciting times because i know we are gonna love what is coming from the new creative industry

http://www.h33t.com going out for a fresh supply of beer and chips. this stuff really aint that difficult after all …

Your incredible pun on the name of my home town has made me see the error of my ways! I now commit myself to the destruction of the music industry through file-sharing.

That’s an example of irony, Bo. Thinking it’s okay to take other peoples work without paying then demanding payment for your own contribution, that’s hypocrisy.

RM, I’m not convinced that stealing is the right word for what goes on with illicit file-sharing.

Say you were a baker and one day your customers just stopped coming in and buying your wares. On investigation, you found that there was someone standing on the street corner, giving away cakes and bread for free. When you asked them why they were doing this, they just shrugged and said, ‘because I can’.

What would you expect the baker to do? Make better cakes? That won’t work because the guy on the corner will just copy them and give them away. Try chase the free vendor away? Or close up shop and sell t-shirts instead?

“Bragg, I try to raise the level of discourse here regularly, but it’s like debating international diplomacy with a bunch of drunken frat boys.”

(rolls eyes)
Some of us are blue in the face, as opposed to drunk, thanks to the likes of you, Bragg, Allen, Elton, etc., and the industry desperately and drunkenly changing laws, lobbying govs as though only they matter, and taking swipes at any sacrificial downloading lambs that they can along the way for the chilling effect.

That’s a war.

If there’s any drunkenness among our troops, it’s probably a coping mechanism. ;)

Bragg:
How about a new tune about how the intent of money-for-art (or practically anything else) can sully its purity?
I’d hear you bark-in-the-park for that.

As we move to more digital product, digital IS material. More will move to digital format in time. There is no grey area as you suggest. Either digital product is to be regarded as material, and respected and purchased as such, or the growing entitlement to “free” by those “who cant pay wont pay try before they buy” will be well within their perceived rights for similar market standards throughout. No industry invests for 60 years, then just shrugs and walks away from millions who “who cant pay wont pay try before they buy”. And no government will allow entire industries to fail to infringement nor relinquish the tax revenue it would have created. The winning suggestion is the one that replaces the revenue stream with something the artists can live on. Piracy took the revenue stream, remember? It’s your responsibility to find an adequate replacement. It’s not as if the product is outdated like the buggy whip, and “Brand awareness” plus a pound or so buys a liter of milk. You still take the milk. You just no longer leave the pound.

Your suggestion that artists will “benefit from the equity of increased brand awareness and market presence” makes sense only when that awareness becomes capital as valued and widely accepted as the money it is replacing. It’s one thing to migrate an industry to digital. It’s something else entirely to view this as some sort of opportunity for global rebellion and the abolition of money in favor of brand awareness.

The most honest argument you make is also your weakest one. “income from the tours and merchandising and sponsorship remain for the artists who use the bittorrent distribution system”

“Remain.”
That statement is another way of saying “yeah, well, our piracy does kinda f*ck any chance you might have had to actually selling your products anymore (in any format) But hey, if you can find the enormous start up costs to design, plan, stock equipment and hire labour for a tour??…..and really, GOOD LUCK with all that!! really!….then you can tour! I’m sure you’ll find the money somewhere! Or maybe a band with spouses and children can live on t-shirts for awhile! Why not become apparel merchants and work in garments?? Or sponsorship. yes. Let’s see if sponsorship will generate the funds artists once had to live their lives so they can focus on creation. By using the word “remain”, h33t, you say it all. “It’s what we are leaving you for now” (until we can pirate your t-shirts, too) is a the honest description of your disaster.

So the irony is our culture is likely to be suffocated and drowning in advertising, the great fear for our future since World War 2 but ironically it’s not the corporations forcing it on us as we expected. Pirates won’t pay. Piracy forces advertising on society as a whole to make up the revenue everyone knows is essential to a thriving creative involvement and no one can figure an alt revenue stream. And all this is just fine by you, I know. There’s no free lunch h33t. Just because you can take someone else’s food and give it away doesn’t mean someone else didn’t have to grow it, harvest it, prepare it and deliver it in the first place. When pirates embrace reality, THEY will “live on t-shirts” to show how it get’s done.

When you have a workable substitute so “free” can deliver to our artists as “paid” once did, you’ll be a hero to both sides of the debate. But for as long as you point to what “remains” and make it the “greedy musicians” fault that this is all they have left to work with, you haven’t evolved h33t, you’ve simply stolen the avenue to the musicians payment that is now missing to benefit yourself. Don’t be surprised when the artists, the industries and the government work together against you to return their wages to them.

“I try to raise the level of discourse here regularly, but it’s like debating international diplomacy with a bunch of drunken frat boys.”

HAHAHA I laughed out loud at this. You say you try to raise the level of discourse here, then you compare us to a bunch of drunken frat boys. Flaming really helps discussion. Mmmhmmm.

“Many of the RM posts here are not my own, my apologies for 186, I’m spoofed here routinely because I dare to offer an opposing view that facilitates intelligent discussion towards a solution both sides can live with.”

Blatantly untrue. You are spoofed mostly for entertainment purposes, I would assume. Also, you do not offer an opposing view that facilitates intelligent discussion. In most of your posts you just flat-out ignore valid points others make, and respond with baseless, fallacious babble. You do not work toward a solution, you don’t recognize valid points, I’m guessing you’ve never really changed your opinion or reconsidered your arguments at all. Both sides can live with? Yeah right. Have you even read any of your posts?

“Regrettably, government has had to get involved because that won’t happen while the face of piracy remains beet red, breathing hard and drooling, while high-fiving each other over their latest pilfered download.”

You never fail to reinforce my argument. You ignore other points, then try to make fun of us. This time you say the face of piracy remains beet-red, breathing hard and drooling. Hardly working toward a solution, or offering any intelligent conversation.

Ignore ignore ignore *Bullshit* *Lies* *Attempt at insult* Ignore ignore….
is basically the gist of all of your posts ever.

Moderators, do your jobs and ban Reasoned Mind’s IP, please.

Please be advised we will not tolerate off topic posts, spam, trolls or personal attacks. Please help us to help you by NOT responding to such posts. ALL posts which fall into this category will be removed, including those responding to such posts.

Remove my posts as well – do what you say you will.

I don’t know who you are– even if you are the FAC Bragg. Anyone can create a moniker of their choosing.
So it was a fair question and The Matrix, a fair metaphoric reference. I also suggest that it may only be a so-so film if you see it superficially– perhaps like how one might listen to one of your own tunes.

“However, the only real response I’ve had is from Bobe-On, who tries to avoid debate…”

The debates all over the internet. I’m blue in the face. It’s been 10 years since Napster. I’d suggest that you and your tiny FAC would do well to do your online research on the matter.

“It would be funny if it wasn’t kinda sad that Bobe-On is unable to deal with anyone who might diagree with him without hiding behind the plot of a so-so sci-fi movie from the last century.”

Try me. Apparently the Matrix refers, among other philosophies, to Plato’s Allegory of the Cave– an even older work.
Many would caution the wisdom of denouncing or rejecting art or history.

“Where am I from, Bo? Barking in east London. Do I exist? Well I’m doing a free gig in Golden Gate Park in San Francisco next weekend, why don’t you come along and find out?”

I am unaware of your music, but I might consider downloading it to see if it’s to my liking enough for me to catch your concert. I did catch your lyrics on forming/joining a union though. ;D

“The worse part… was your outrage that I should ask for ‘a free consultation’. Am I the only person on here who finds it a little ironic that you demand the right to download free music, yet when asked for an opinion on a blog comment thread, you expect to be paid for it?”

I offered the irony first, though; which involves the often-repeated notion of the industry alienating its own consumers. Shit, Bragg, instead of barking in the park and defending Allen, how about some research on the issue?
For the record, I wouldn’t give you advice even if you paid me for it, in part because I believe in and respect people’s online freedoms, such that your FAC doesn’t seem to. And you’re wading into this issue at least 10 years late. If you include other ways to download, even longer.

Read my other posts on here.

“I realise that I came to this thread rather late…”

That’s a start. ;)

“…and that some of you are in other time zones…”

And other reality zones too.

“…but is nobody willing to engage in a debate about how we might take on the music industry together?”

Your FAC wrote:
“We the undersigned wish to express our support for Lily Allen in her campaign to alert… to the threat that illegal downloading presents to our industry…”

Your industry?
We already know about Allen’s apparent hypocrisy, but there seem to be other FAC members who are singing different tunes out of each side of their mouths.

“…is there anywhere on torrentfreak that we can discuss these issues without the usual name calling and disrespect from both sides?”

While I generally dislike “disrespect” and “ad hominems”, I also understand that they can be open to subjective interpretation and that they come with the exercise of certain freedoms.

But how about on your own FAC forum or website?
Allen’s already deleted hers.
So much for transparency, or to getting different sides of an argument. ;)

Speaking of respect and freedom, From the your own FAC’s charter:

“So we will campaign for laws, regulations, business practices and policies that protect artists’ rights.

We will stand up for all artists by engaging with government, music and technology companies, and collection societies. We will argue for fair play and will expose unfair practices.”

Sounds like file-sharing’s in for more of the same disrespect from the industry and their so-called “artists”.

Thank you for your thoughtful responses to my posts.

I agree that P2P has huge potential to promote artists who wish to make music on their own terms, outside of the clutches of a music industry wedded to the analog business models.But one of the biggest problems we face is the insistence of record labels that they own the rights to our recordings. In exchange for short term financing of albums and tours, we are forced to trade the rights to our recordings for life of copyright, which is currently 50 years. Advances from record companies are very hard to resist when you’re looking to give up your shitty day job and live your dream of being a musician, so most artists take the money and don’t think about the implications.

Advances are like a mortgage from a bank, you have to pay them back. The big difference is that, when you pay back your mortgage, you own your house. When we pay back our advances, the label continues to own our records. Why do people sign up to such bad deals? Because, in the old analog days, if you wanted to find 1000 fans, you needed to put your records into every shop in the country. Now that is no longer necessary, we need to be looking at other viable business models.

A big part of that shift will be educating young artists not to sign such life of copyright deals. We will only be able to convince them of the benefits of retaining their independence if we can set up the kind of service that you describe in your post. FAC are already talking about such a network.

btw Lily’s campaign was her idea. However, it has really helped us get our agenda out there, so I can see how you might think we planned it – however, we’re not that smart.

h33t, where are you on the idea that we should be looking to monetise P2P activity? Just to clarify what I mean by that term, monetisation implies that the artist is not paid directly by the user, but by a third party who uses the activity to advertise, as happens on commercial radio, for example: the music is free at point of use, but artists still get paid from advertising revenue.

i have mixed feelings about the whole lily allen anti-filesharing episode. it is looking more and more like a cleverly arranged publicity stunt by people who know the media and how it works

i suspect FAC of organising it because they are the out and out winners by presenting to the government a “united front”. throttling bandwidth is inoperable and it is a huge departure from the proposed disconnection. it is a total win for FAC

@ Reasoned Mind

filesharing is the democratisation of digital distribution. it is your call for restrictive practises that is undemocratic

@ Billy Bragg

for 1 year at uni i woke every morning to my next door neighbour in the halls of residence blasting your music at volume 11. whilst it wasnt to my taste and at first was annoying as hell, i did listen to the lyrics and despite not having a socialist bone in my body i must say ultimately your message is good and true

Billy, for your own peace of mind please ignore the anti-p2p shills who post against you in this blog. from my direct knowledge of operating a torrent site you are supported by filesharers and your voice is on message with ours. nothing you have said contradicts the tenets of filesharing as it is understood in the context of the current economic and technical environment. i am delighted to see you proactive in this debate because i know your pedigree, i know where you are coming from, and i understand your method

it should be no surprise to you Billy that many of the players in the filesharing world are highly educated and developed technologists and economists. if you are looking for hard-nosed business models that i have personally delivered (not simply torrent sites) which thrive in the new technological environment then you know where to find me. i will share my knowledge and skills for free because that is what we filesharers are all about: freedom of opportunity, freedom of access, freedom of data

i dont charge money for my ideas because tomorrow i will have a new idea because that is my creativity. people pay to be part of that environment, to enjoy the benefits of a caring sharing world, the universe i create and share. if i have 10 million people digesting my brand of bullshit then i am simply happy because they all talk my language and what is more they give back more than i could ever afford to buy. i am enriched by the interaction. so i could never sell my creativity because that would be to deny someone somewhere access to my world and the big cost risk is that person might have exactly what i was looking for and i have removed them from my universe through some false restrictive practise

to be very specific: the issue for music artists is to overcome the technological barriers to the market

previously, the technology was owned by the media cartel monopoly, rightly so because it was their technology and methods. but music existed before EMI and Edison. actually the music that existed was Mozart and Beethoven and Bach and local folk acts. the old recording industry dumbed it all down and at the same time killed the local folk ensembles. if you went today to Sony and said you had a band needing distribution they would tell you fuk off because they manufacture their own. Mozart was a popularist, he wrote for the theatre, Mozart wrote for the people. Beethoven was patronised by the wealthy who valued his art. Bach was supported by the church and the folk artists were supported by the people

at NO TIME IN HISTORY has music creativity been supported by the government. today the difference between the government and the media cartel is a very thin line because global monopoly rich on artificial scarcity, massively inflated prices and exploitation of creative minds, has the money and power that buys politicians simply because the industry is so large it cannot be ignored. in the USA the legal system is such that corporation = political executive and the lawyers are the high priests of the money temple. we all understand that such a structure is poison to creativity. a recording contract revenue, ignoring the artists direct income from tours and merchandising and sponsorship, is 90% for the administration = the men in gray suits. income from the tours and merchandising and sponsorship remain for the artists who use the bittorrent distribution system

to help artists overcome the technological barriers to entry to the emerging market, FAC is in an unparalleled position of opportunity to lead from the front and make the best of the momentum that has been gathered from this debate. make an alliance with a fiesharing site operation and let them do the technical arrangements for hosting the content files, creating the torrents, getting the content into the market and building the brand equity. the people themselves will distribute the content they like and provide the marketing and dissemination of awareness that is central to the core value proposition for the artists. the filesharing site can easily provide a portal for the artists with paypal donation and purchase functions for fans to support and access the artists artifacts. the portal informs the fan base and visiting public of opportunities to see the artists live and provides a direct contact with the artists for exchange of news and views. the artist using such a system has lost nothing except finance for their project from not having a recording contract. but what does the loss of finance amount to when so few artists ever gain a recording contract? absolutely nothing when understood in the greater scheme

a php coder can put together a professional portal for an artist integrated into a big torrent site in less than 1 day of work. once the core code is written it takes marginal effort, only minutes, to add another artist. artists can add themselves and their own content. the cost model is infinitely economic compared to the current industry, when and only when, it is understoond that access to the market has suddenly become deregulated and open to all artists. there is precisely the problem for the current industry which does not want unregulated open access to the music sphere

most importantly, dont miss this suggestion! FAC can look at addressing the banks to fund new artists in the same way that the banks through government intervention have been forced to finance students through higher education. tell that to Mandy. tell Mandy he can without cost to government, without cost to the tax payer, he can directly encourage the production of music and the film industry and all the other content types by regulating banks to support our creative industry with commercial funding. the cost of a record contract to the emerging artists was always 90% to the industry 10% to the artists. the new model means the artists dont need to borrow 100% of the industry costs, they can borrow what they really need, cash for instruments and studios and tour funds. they dont need to pay the men in the gray suits to organise it for them. significantly, the profit is only for the artists

the circle is nicely closed with funding in place, free distribution over bittorrent secured, partnership with torrents site operators providing the portal and platform, the artists are in control and they dont need to pay the man

the issue on the other side of the coin is that torrent sites and their admins are an endangered species. we are being systematically hunted down and eliminated. we take extraordinary risks in our private lives because we believe in what we are doing in the face of an all powerful enemy. the anti-p2p own the whole shebang, news, politicians, propaganda, the mind of the public, everything. FAC by bringing the artists to the new technological order can assist in the socialisation of filesharing to the higher echelons of government. talk sense to them who would volunteer to destroy us because we are a destructive technology that is destroying the evil of restrictive practises and their unholy cash cow

bittorrent was born out of the necessity created by an unjust monopoly that served the few and repressed the majority of artists and consumers. we did not create this to hurt anyone. we created filesharing because it was the only way forward. it is the right thing to do given the terrible condition of the media monopoly. in this world of haves and have nots, filesharing has enabled people all over the world to access content that otherwise was totally beyond their means. filesharing is caring that is greater than a corporation bottom line profit because if i could tomorrow pay 1 Trillion USD to remove a barrier between people in the world then it is a cheap price to pay for bringing people together

… freedom of access, freedom of opportunity, freedom of data …

if today the majority of content shared has an associated copyright issue, we know that tomorrow it will not be the case. the issue is how long will it take before digital distribution is fully democratised and the people are liberated from the tyranny of exploitation and suppression of their art. the means is in our hands. to the recording industry i say this: do not be afraid because what you fear has already happened. the jeopardy remains can we survive long enough without central government intervention to prove our model works. the answer is “yes we can”

the key take-away for artists is customer relationship management, deep market segmentation, and control of your own. give your creative product for free and charge the customer who can pay for a relationship that the artists personally manage. segment the market by giving access to the artists’ product to those who cant pay wont pay try before they buy and benefit from the equity of increased brand awareness and market presence. reap the revenue rewards for yourself by cutting out the middleman

http://www.h33t.com who has much more to say

Many of the RM posts here are not my own, my apologies for 186, I’m spoofed here routinely because I dare to offer an opposing view that facilitates intelligent discussion towards a solution both sides can live with.

Regrettably, government has had to get involved because that won’t happen while the face of piracy remains beet red, breathing hard and drooling, while high-fiving each other over their latest pilfered download.

However, the only real response I’ve had is from Bobe-On, who tries to avoid debate by questioning if I exist and accuses me of being from the Matrix. It would be funny if it wasn’t kinda sad that Bobe-On is unable to deal with anyone who might diagree with him without hiding behind the plot of a so-so sci-fi movie from the last century.

Where am I from, Bo? Barking in east London. Do I exist? Well I’m doing a free gig in Golden Gate Park in San Francisco next weekend, why don’t you come along and find out?

The worse part of your post wasn’t the Matrix inspired paranoia, it was your outrage that I should ask for ‘a free consultation’. Am I the only person on here who finds it a little ironic that you demand the right to download free music, yet when asked for an opinion on a blog comment thread, you expect to be paid for it?

I realise that I came to this thread rather late and that some of you are in other time zones, but is nobody willing to engage in a debate about how we might take on the music industry together?

Maybe the moderators can help: is there anywhere on torrentfreak that we can discuss these issues without the usual name calling and disrespect from both sides??

The most fascinating thing I find about internet trolls is their incessant need make “the reply”. It’s like a drug addicts next fix, I find it truly amazing what forms addictive behaviour takes in people with such psychological traits.

I’m not going to get into a debate with you about Lily Allen, except that to say, if she is the figurehead for anti-file sharing then it shows just how disconnected the “music industry” really is.

Truthfully I hope they succeed in their mission for 14 year old girls to once again purchase big label commercial fodder. They may then leave the rest of us to support the artists, promotion & distribution methods that produce original & relevant music in a way which suits independent labels, artists and here’s the kicker the consumer!