Says “three-strikes” should consist of a warning letter, a “stronger” warning letter, and finally bandwidth throttling for illegal file-sharers so that they could still surf the web and check their e-mail.
The Featured Artists’ Coalition (FAC), which formed this past March to give artists an equal voice in the P2P debate, and has repeatedly voiced its objection to any legislation that would criminalize file-sharing by music fans, held an “urgent” summit yesterday to discuss illegal file-sharing.
The summit was arguably a result of the very public discord between it and Lily Allen, whom called the FAC nothing more than a bunch of “rich and successful” music artists with some of the “biggest Ferrari collections in the world.”
She wrongly thinks they’re pro-file-sharing rather than merely anti-disconnection. They believe “wide-scale invasion of personal privacy” is both “disproportionate and unenforceable” to the threat posed by what is ostensibly a minority of Internet users.
They also see P2P as an “important form of promotion” for emerging artists while she considers it a “disaster.”
So the FAC called for a meeting of music artists last night at Air Studios in London to discuss the issue of illegal file-sharing and how it affects them and the people that support them.
Together they agreed on the the Air Statement:
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 and to condemn the vitriol that has been directed at her in recent days.
Our meeting also voted overwhelmingly to support a three-strike sanction on those who persistently download illegal files, sanctions to consist of a warning letter, a stronger warning letter and a final sanction of the restriction of the infringer’s bandwidth to a level which would render file-sharing of media files impractical while leaving basic email and web access functional.
So it seems that though they still don’t support disconnecting file-sharers from the Internet per Lord Mandelson’s evolved “three-strikes” plan, they have come to embrace bandwidth throttling instead.
It’s a puzzling solution to a problem that is difficult if not impossible to legislate against, yet is a careful middle ground between the two sides of the debate.
“In the meeting, we didn’t always agree but we came to an agreement that we thought was good for everyone,” said Radiohead guitarist Ed O’Brien afterwards. “We’re going to have further meetings like this, we’re going to get together – we’ve realized the importance of doing this together.”
He described the meeting as both “emotional” and “heated.”
The Open Rights Group, the UK-based organization dedicated to defending freedom of expression, privacy, innovation, consumer rights and creativity on the Internet, while praising their decision to renounce Internet disconnection, says that throttling “could be just as bad” and is “both unjust and a distraction” to the real problem.
It says the real problem is the fact that new online music business models can’t get started because entrepreneurs can’t get the licenses necessary to create and run them.
“The reason for that is quite simple: licenses don’t exist,” it says. “Unlike, for instance, radio, there’s nowhere you can go to get a license for your online music business.”
“The result is that it takes years to set up a new business, and the industry’s major labels are able to ‘pick winners’ that suit them. It is no coincidence that you either have to be very big, like Apple or YouTube, or prepared to give large slices of your business to the labels, as Spotify did, to get going.”
It echoes what I reported on this past July when David Pakman, a music industry veteran and now venture capitalist at Venrock Associates, blamed the music industry for a lack of digital music innovation.
“What the music industry never encouraged or even allowed was building an ecosystem around its product,” he said.
Most digital music services face the daunting task of securing permission to even sell music, let alone a brokering a deal that makes the venture profitable.
The Open Rights Group points to examples like Virgin, which has spent years trying to create a subscription-based unlimited MP3 download service. After initially scrapping the plans back in January, during the summer it said the plan was still a go and that it would launch later this year.
“There is a serious argument that labels are acting to restrain trade, and are preventing competition,” adds the Open Rights Group. “The result is that unlicensed services fill the gap.”
There has to be something to be fact that nobody other than Apple has been able to make a profitable online music service, and that’s what artists and the FAC ought to be concerned with. You can hold all the summits you want, but unless and until you offer music fans a viable alternative you’ll never solve the problem.
Creating viable alternatives won’t happen only by warning and throttling file-sharers. It’ll require record labels and artists to come together and figure out a way to give fans the music they want and at a price they can afford.
Why does it have to be so hard?
Stay tuned.
jared@zeropaid.com
Related
- UK Music Artists Denounce Prosecuting File-Sharers
- Virgin Media: ‘We Won’t Sue or Disconnect Illegal File-Sharers’
- UK Govt Plans “2-Strikes” for File-Sharers Instead of 3
- Bono Blasts File-Sharers
- Irish ISP Agrees to Three-Strikes Policy for File-Sharers
It sounds like a fair deal, but I’m concerned about what happens when the next net infrastructure is built, and what about cell phones? Seems like a law like that would have to be pretty technically specific.
“It’ll require record labels and artists to come together and figure out a way to give fans the music they want and at a price they can afford.”
That’s nonsense. You have access to tall the music in the world. If you lived in Bemin, maybe not, but you live in a rich industrialized western country . You can’t afford a six dollar album? How can you afford to run a website? No, it’s obviously your smokescreen for wanting media to be ‘zeropaid’. Why bother pretending otherwise?
? You cant download the Beatles for one, not to mention the fact that digital music services like iTunes don’t always have a complete selection of emerging artists.
Im not of the opinion that media should be “zeropaid,” only that file-sharing cannot be legislated out of existence. Instead of focusing on new content delivery platforms and services copyright holders do everything in their power to limit competition and monopolize distribution.
A buddy of mine just returned from Australia and remarked how most American TV shows aired there are more than a season behind. Is it any reason then that a number of Australians turn to P2P for content?
Id even pay 30 bucks a month for an “all you can eat” mp3 subscription package
http://paidcontent.co.uk/article/419-virgin-doing-unlimited-music-package-will-suspend-illegal-downloaders/
BTW, don’t “run the website,” only write here
You have to consider what the all you can eat package does to how artists are compensated. Here’s a hint – they won’t be. If I have to wait a year to see an episode of British TV and that heps them make enough money to make the programs I like, then so be it, who cares? Who cares if you have to wait or spend a tiny amount of cash? Who cares if you can’t have everything you want? Do you really think we have all this great culture because people were doing it out of pure goodness? It took money, man, and when the money goes so does the culture. It’s not like Michelangelo lay on his back with a team of hirelings for weeks to paint the Cistene Chapel out of love, it wouldn’t have happened unless the money men hired him out and paid for all that to go down. You just rationalize not wanting to pay for the goods you take – all this other shit is is a rationalization.
“You have to consider what the all you can eat package does to how artists are compensated. Here’s a hint – they won’t be.”
Oh really?
“If I have to wait a year to see an episode of British TV and that heps them make enough money to make the programs I like, then so be it, who cares?”
One year is a very long time for just a single TV episode. In that sense, a viewer would forget what is going on in the shows and may no longer hold interest, which is not good to broadcasters.
“Who cares if you have to wait or spend a tiny amount of cash?”
It depends what you mean by tiny amount and what that tiny amount is spent on.
“Who cares if you can’t have everything you want?”
Who cares if you can’t have everything you want?
“Do you really think we have all this great culture because people were doing it out of pure goodness?”
No, but by pure artistic expression.
“It took money, man, and when the money goes so does the culture.”
You have an extremely poor sense of culture.
“It’s not like Michelangelo lay on his back [...]”
And what is your point? People wouldn’t usually build or paint large buildings without being hired, and being hired implies being payed at some nonzero rate.
“You just rationalize not wanting to pay for the goods you take – all this other shit is is a rationalization.”
You are trying to rationalize others’ irrational behaviors and speculate rationalizations that do not exist, which in turn makes you a hypocrite.
Of course we can afford a six-dollar album. If only they were actually priced as such…
I’m a lighting designer for concerts and corporate events. I work for a club that has national acts almost every night. Sometimes the bands bring their own designer to run their lights. But, this only happens about 35 – 40% of the time. Now, being a guy who really cares about his job, sometimes I’ll download a song or two by an artist so I can at least know a couple of songs and get an idea of what they are trying to accomplish. Sometimes they give me a CD at the end of the show for a job well done, or if I have expressed interest in their music. I have never met an artist that been upset/mad/sad when I told them I “illegally downloaded” their music. The reply I always get is “oh, great! so you’re familiar with some of our songs”. Also, I currently (and have in the past) work for bands directly as their designer. I have been directed by bands to download their music, and not all of it was available on itunes. Thus, file sharing was implied. I have also seen this scenario play out at many concerts:
Singer: “so how many of you bought our new album?”
various hands in the air and scattered cheers from the crowd.
Singer: “so how many of you downloaded our new album illegaly?”
Now the hands in the air have tripled and the cheers have gone from a volume of 3.5 to 11.
Singer: “Well, at least you have it. And, what the hell, you came to the show anyway.”
Now, granted the club I work for doesn’t have huge arena show names like madonna or prince. But we did have one of the first 3 of brittany spears’s comeback shows. For the sake of keeping my job I’ll just say its “a’dwelling’ of ‘music that muddy waters plays” that i work at.
Bands need to realize that the money is in touring and merchandising because people don’t want to buy a whole CD because they like 2 or 3 songs on it. And the alternative is purchasing a download that has restrictions on it. Buying a ticket and alcohol at a show puts more money in the bands pocket than CD’s does. There’s less middlemen involved and no record company hording profits. And yes, believe it or not, bands get a percentage of the house profit on alcohol sales if they sell out. They’re guaranteed a flat amount up to selling out then they get a percentage of the overall profits if they sell out.
I too agreed with this it should not be that much harsh. FAC should not embraces throttling for file sharers.
Heh, at least not it’s as harsh as complete disconnection… XD
In N.Z you can wait a couple of years!.I’m downloading “supernatural season 5″ because the state broadcaster is still dragging their feet on season 3.They obviously have no idea that to build a fanbase you need to show the program every week.We get a show for a month then they take it off for two months or replace it with sport or some other shite.I decided long ago never to be dictated to by clueless assbandits again!.
All lies, working in the industry I have seen everything tried. Subscription, set your own price, all of it. None of it works. People now expect media to be free, and it cant be, it costs money to make. Simple. Go intern at a small label and see what goes on. Unfortunately, in this world, we need laws. Throttle em.
“Unfortunately, in this world, we need laws. Throttle em.”
Go ahead – people will simply find ways around your methods.
And even – if by some miracle – you manage to throttle every filesharer in Europe and North America – there’s still the vast developing world: try enforcing your idiotic laws there!
In the war between technology and legality, it is technology that is winning worldwide. And if it kills the music and movie industries – so much the better. Who needs those vested interests anyway? Everyone knows that they aren’t about making music and movies anyway – they’re about making money.
Go ahead, strike down bittorrent.
Let the decentralization and encryption of the filesharing universe begin.