Comments on: FAC to Lily Allen: “P2P is Important Form of Promotion”

By: Norwegian Royalty Group: You Can’t Upload Own Music to Pirate Bay

Norwegian Royalty Group: You Can’t Upload Own Music to Pirate Bay — Wed, 25 Nov 2009 08:06:11 +0000

[...] means that emerging artists seeking to use P2P as a form of “self promotion” will discover that the only thing preventing it from reaching new fans is the very group [...]

By: Court: Spotify Link Makes Pirate Bay Appeal Judge Biased

Court: Spotify Link Makes Pirate Bay Appeal Judge Biased — Tue, 29 Sep 2009 16:51:03 +0000

[...] week the case against Swedish BitTorrent tracker site The Pirate Bay heated up with reports that the lay judge [...]

By: Lily Allen Deletes Anti-P2P Blog, Quits Music for Acting

Lily Allen Deletes Anti-P2P Blog, Quits Music for Acting — Sat, 26 Sep 2009 15:09:01 +0000

[...] also see P2P as an “important form of promotion” for emerging artists while she considers it a [...]

By: 50 Cent: “P2P is Part of Music Marketing”

50 Cent: “P2P is Part of Music Marketing” — Wed, 23 Sep 2009 17:55:37 +0000

[...] His comments echo those of the Featured Artists Coalition (FAC) who recently referred to P2P as an “important form of promotion.” [...]

By: mountain_rage

mountain_rage — Wed, 23 Sep 2009 03:57:51 +0000

By these initiatives I mean 3 strikes laws, suing filesharers etc…

By: Greg

Greg — Wed, 23 Sep 2009 01:53:20 +0000

What frustrates me the most is that I honestly do want to support the artists whose music is the soundtrack to my life. I’m most certainly NOT talking about trash like Flo Rida or Lily Allen, but I would love to give a crisp $20 note and a “Thank you!” directly to some of the people I love to listen to. However, the people who are crippling their own industry, the executives at the labels, are standing in the way of me doing that.

It’s a compliment to the breadth and wealth of the industry that they’ve lasted this long (as any other industry that smash and grab their own customers would’ve crashed and burned years ago), but their days are now numbered. In the meantime, I’m torn. As consumers, we have the power to vote with our wallets, and boycotting these labels is tempting, but in the end the artists will end up being victimised.

Those who don’t learn from history (see Steal This Film) are doomed to repeat it. Where’s the objective, balanced research? Where’s some proof of **actual** loss?

By: mountain_rage

mountain_rage — Tue, 22 Sep 2009 22:09:23 +0000

At most the three strikes should only apply to original up loaders. But even that is a push when no money is being generated by it. Users of P2P networks have no way of knowing whether or not the file is creative commons, open source, or copyrighted and unauthorized. Why should the onus be on the consumer to verify the integrity of the files on a network? Either labels have to create a blanket DRM that can’t die with the closure of a server and can be played, transferred and used on all devices, and cannot be disabled whenever they feel its their right. Essentially make an Mp3 that doesn’t allow sharing between users but offers up all the other benefits of Mp3′s. If they can’t work together to offer that to consumers they don’t deserve any protection on filesharing networks.

Prosecution should be limited to commercial distribution. Its up to the labels to protect their content on the internet, not the rest of the world. Closing off all independent channels, not yet controlled by the music cartel does nothing but give them back their monopolistic grasp. Many small independent artist use filesharing and the internet for self promotion, and these initiatives creates confusion on the legality of such acts. Its unfair business practice, and should not be allowed.