Dan Lawrence
09-24-2009, 01:31 AM
I know, I know - its another one of those threads about piracy.
I thought it was interesting to see the change in Lilly Allen; an artist who launched her career in the UK via myspace streaming and who previously seemed publically hugely relaxed about illegal filesharing. Very much a yoof act. She's now started an online blog/campaign gathering support from Take That and others to fight against illegal filesharing and tentatively in support of the government plans to introduce a 3-strikes rule to disconnect illegal filesharers. She's also been targetting the Featured Artists Coalition (a pressure group composed principally of Radiohead, Pink Floyd & Robbie Williams) for their statements of opposition to the government plans. This then prompted the FAC to issue a clarifying statement bringing them much closer to Allen in spirit but still divided on the government's disconnection plans. There is some talk of a compromise solution being floated by a drunken Mat Bellamy from Muse.
Now, there is apparently a crisis summit being held today in London to try and present a united front on piracy from 'the artists'.
BBC story on the crisis summit:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/8270946.stm
Lilly Allen's Campaign blog:
http://idontwanttochangetheworld.blogspot.com/
Featured Artists Coalition website:
http://www.featuredartistscoalition.com/showscreen.php?site_id=161&screentype=site&screenid=161
Clarifying statement from FAC on their file sharing position:
http://www.featuredartistscoalition.com/showscreen.php?site_id=161&screentype=site&screenid=161&newsaction=showitem&newsid=2549&dc=6&sn=News
We wish to make it clear to all parties that we believe the creative work of artists should be paid for by those who enjoy it and that whenever our music is used, royalties should be paid.
However, we seriously question the wisdom of seeking to deal with this problem by terminating the internet connections of individual music fans. We are not referring to websites that reap commercial benefit from file-sharing: seeking to make money from giving our songs away. We want the industry and Government to come down on those thieving rascals with all the weight of the law.
The MUSE third way:
Lily
My current opinion is that file sharing is now the norm. This cannot be changed without an attack on perceived civil liberties which will never go down well. The problem is that the ISPs making the extreme profits (due to millions of broadband subscriptions) are not being taxed by the copyright owners correctly and this is a legislation issue. Radio stations and TV stations etc have to pay the copyright owners (both recording and publishing) a fee for using material they do not own. ISPs should have to pay in the same way with a collection agency like PRS doing the monitoring and calculations based on encoded (but freely downloaded) data. Broadband makes the internet essentially the new broadcaster. This is the point which is being missed.
Also, usage should have a value. Someone who just checks email uses minimal bandwidth, but someone who downloads 1 gig per day uses way more, but at the moment they pay the same. It is clear which user is hitting the creative industries and it is clear which user is not, so for this reason, usage should also be priced accordingly. The end result will be a taxed, monitored ISP based on usage which will ensure both the freedom of the consumer and the rights of the artists - the loser will be the ISP who will probably have to increase subscription costs to compensate, but the user will have the freedom to choose between checking a few emails (which will cost far less than a current monthly subscription) and downloading tons of music and film (which will cost probably a bit more than current subscription, but not that much more).
We should set up a meeting with Lord Mandelson as he is on this issue at the moment, I'm sure he would meet us for breakfast!
The NME Opinion formers wade in supporting Lilly:
http://www.nme.com/blog/index.php?blog=10&title=why_lily_allen_is_right_about_file_shari&more=1&c=1&tb=1&pb=1
Trouble is, demonising downloaders is not a cool or edgy position to take. The moment you say File-Sharing Is A Crime you sound like a tedious finger-wagging reactionary, the journalistic equivalent one of those tranquilised Middle England matrons who writes to Points Of View to heap praise on programmes about badgers and hedgerows ("More please, BBC!"). But perhaps it's time we left such concerns behind.
Ever since Metallica's Lars Ulrich sued Napster in 2000, the terms of the debate have become hopelessly simplified into David Vs Goliath: plucky outsiders challenging Major Label Scum. This in turn has enabled berks like The Pirate Bay to portray themselves as Robin Hood-style radical libertarians, thumbing their nose at authority, when in actual fact they're sneering, self-promoting chancers with deeply dodgy politics, who got rich leeching off other people's creativity.
Indeed, the issue has been muddied to the point where even a peerless rationalist such as Charlie Brooker can get confused. In a recent column he argued that file-sharers are not thieves; they're enthusiasts who just "bloody love music" – and in any case probably can't afford 79p a track because they're mostly students. Hmm. I'd argue that anyone who "bloody loves music" ought to be willing to pay the people who create it.
The Charlie Brooker piece he is referring to:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/sep/14/charlie-brooker-damien-hirst
I thought it was interesting to see the change in Lilly Allen; an artist who launched her career in the UK via myspace streaming and who previously seemed publically hugely relaxed about illegal filesharing. Very much a yoof act. She's now started an online blog/campaign gathering support from Take That and others to fight against illegal filesharing and tentatively in support of the government plans to introduce a 3-strikes rule to disconnect illegal filesharers. She's also been targetting the Featured Artists Coalition (a pressure group composed principally of Radiohead, Pink Floyd & Robbie Williams) for their statements of opposition to the government plans. This then prompted the FAC to issue a clarifying statement bringing them much closer to Allen in spirit but still divided on the government's disconnection plans. There is some talk of a compromise solution being floated by a drunken Mat Bellamy from Muse.
Now, there is apparently a crisis summit being held today in London to try and present a united front on piracy from 'the artists'.
BBC story on the crisis summit:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/8270946.stm
Lilly Allen's Campaign blog:
http://idontwanttochangetheworld.blogspot.com/
Featured Artists Coalition website:
http://www.featuredartistscoalition.com/showscreen.php?site_id=161&screentype=site&screenid=161
Clarifying statement from FAC on their file sharing position:
http://www.featuredartistscoalition.com/showscreen.php?site_id=161&screentype=site&screenid=161&newsaction=showitem&newsid=2549&dc=6&sn=News
We wish to make it clear to all parties that we believe the creative work of artists should be paid for by those who enjoy it and that whenever our music is used, royalties should be paid.
However, we seriously question the wisdom of seeking to deal with this problem by terminating the internet connections of individual music fans. We are not referring to websites that reap commercial benefit from file-sharing: seeking to make money from giving our songs away. We want the industry and Government to come down on those thieving rascals with all the weight of the law.
The MUSE third way:
Lily
My current opinion is that file sharing is now the norm. This cannot be changed without an attack on perceived civil liberties which will never go down well. The problem is that the ISPs making the extreme profits (due to millions of broadband subscriptions) are not being taxed by the copyright owners correctly and this is a legislation issue. Radio stations and TV stations etc have to pay the copyright owners (both recording and publishing) a fee for using material they do not own. ISPs should have to pay in the same way with a collection agency like PRS doing the monitoring and calculations based on encoded (but freely downloaded) data. Broadband makes the internet essentially the new broadcaster. This is the point which is being missed.
Also, usage should have a value. Someone who just checks email uses minimal bandwidth, but someone who downloads 1 gig per day uses way more, but at the moment they pay the same. It is clear which user is hitting the creative industries and it is clear which user is not, so for this reason, usage should also be priced accordingly. The end result will be a taxed, monitored ISP based on usage which will ensure both the freedom of the consumer and the rights of the artists - the loser will be the ISP who will probably have to increase subscription costs to compensate, but the user will have the freedom to choose between checking a few emails (which will cost far less than a current monthly subscription) and downloading tons of music and film (which will cost probably a bit more than current subscription, but not that much more).
We should set up a meeting with Lord Mandelson as he is on this issue at the moment, I'm sure he would meet us for breakfast!
The NME Opinion formers wade in supporting Lilly:
http://www.nme.com/blog/index.php?blog=10&title=why_lily_allen_is_right_about_file_shari&more=1&c=1&tb=1&pb=1
Trouble is, demonising downloaders is not a cool or edgy position to take. The moment you say File-Sharing Is A Crime you sound like a tedious finger-wagging reactionary, the journalistic equivalent one of those tranquilised Middle England matrons who writes to Points Of View to heap praise on programmes about badgers and hedgerows ("More please, BBC!"). But perhaps it's time we left such concerns behind.
Ever since Metallica's Lars Ulrich sued Napster in 2000, the terms of the debate have become hopelessly simplified into David Vs Goliath: plucky outsiders challenging Major Label Scum. This in turn has enabled berks like The Pirate Bay to portray themselves as Robin Hood-style radical libertarians, thumbing their nose at authority, when in actual fact they're sneering, self-promoting chancers with deeply dodgy politics, who got rich leeching off other people's creativity.
Indeed, the issue has been muddied to the point where even a peerless rationalist such as Charlie Brooker can get confused. In a recent column he argued that file-sharers are not thieves; they're enthusiasts who just "bloody love music" – and in any case probably can't afford 79p a track because they're mostly students. Hmm. I'd argue that anyone who "bloody loves music" ought to be willing to pay the people who create it.
The Charlie Brooker piece he is referring to:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/sep/14/charlie-brooker-damien-hirst