P2P: the BPI responds to DiS poll

turns out it's a perfectly acceptable phrase for industry spokespeople to use, like 'lolby city', or 'my little pwny'.

god bless the future.

http://freetard.com/?page_id=2

most people like to acquire physical things - it's what we're used to, we like having objects to possess and hold. The issue that the BPI and RIAA always avoid dealing with is that for decades CDs have been hugely overpriced. Now itunes is....hugely overpriced. CDs should not cost more than a recent DVD as they frequently do. The discounting argument holds for chart CDs etc but then that just perpetuates the whole problem of being herded towards directed music tastes rather than deciding what you want to listen to.
If CDs were £3-£5 I would certainly buy most of the ones I wanted. I still buy more more CDs per year than anyone I know and download a lot of dross on top of that. People buy for lots of reasons, loyalty to the band and supporting young bands being among them. However, to dismiss free p2p suggests that we should just suck it up, that CDs or rubbish quality mp3s on itunes are worth the money. They're not. Simple solution.

I'm just expressing a point of view.

"The truth is that I and many other people use filesharing primarily as a means to discover the music of artists that we hear about but are not familiar with, rather than just to download the new TV on the Radio album which I know I want and am happy to pay for."

Hear about where? Most people I know find out about new music through word of mouth, online or otherwise. All I'm saying that examples like Fakesensations (the artist whose post promoted mine) who grew awareness by posting their album on the mininova homepage (and attracting passing traffic) are the exception rather than the rule and that clearly won't work for everyone.

I'm not taking a stab in the dark either: virtually every study (independent of us) points to that the "promotional" value of p2p is outweighed by the people who use it as a means to avoid paying for music.

but thinking about it in terms of the general populus he is right. I know many people who have never paid for music, and don't intend to while filesharing is so freely available. Many people now feel that music should be free because they can get their hands on it quite easily from the likes of Mininova.

Traditionally yes music fans like those on this site will use a service like this to get hold of stuff to try before they buy, but its with this in mind that I tend to think "how many people is that really?" I'm guessing not many compared to the amount of freeloaders out there.

The big difference now is because of the speed of broadband people can download a bands back catalogue in an hour. When net speeds were shit people gave up and bought the CD because it might actually be quicker that way!

In either case though I think he put the industries case forward well enough, I'd like to have seen him address the issue you raise there though - those that use it for posiitve means. Could the industry support a model once again of limited try before you buy files etc, that "expire" after 2 listens or something?

The pricing model used to sell music relied on the premise that they could make optimum revenue from new release and then spin revenue out through mid-pricing, bundling, repackaging or any other way of squeezing the last drops out of essentially the same product. The technology available should always (in my opinion) have been used to drive down the cost of providing the buyer with their music, but the industry (predominantly the major labels and traditional simply thought that they could use it as an outlet to sell the same product more directly. This totally misses the point of digital formats, in that you are then leaving the door wide open for people to say 'I don't agree that I should pay for something that should be way cheaper anyway', therefore these people will elect not to pay and receive the same product.

I buy far less CDs than I used to (but I would wager this is far more than most) and fully admit that i probably pay less (and receive far more in return), but a fair proportion of this is now P2P. To be honest, I find P2P just a necessary evil. If the whole industry made a concerted effort to reduce the overall cost of music (where technology allows a far greater amount to be accessed or 'consumed') then I would be more than happy to ditch P2P and walk in line with the industry again.

I'm now 28 and have enjoyed listening to and finding out about music new and old since I was 11. I will safely say I'm never going to get bored of it. However, when I was 11 and bought my first CD from a shop, I never ever thought that I’d be effectively breaking the law in order to do this. I really hope the industry puts me back on the straight and narrow by creating a pricing model that is fair for all. I used to like knowing that I was putting some cash (not very much mind you) into the pockets of the musicians I enjoyed. It seemed to be a fair deal. I hope to feel that way again once I start to feel like I get a fair rub too.

deep breath, i spend roughly £12,000 a year on new releases (i love music me) and i just feel ripped off most of the time.in the early 90's you used to have to buy upwards of 5 different formats to get hold of all the tracks/remixes of a single release (resulting in a overwhelming sense off being ripped off).

now you buy a cd only to have it re-released with a bonus dvd or extra tracks 3 months later but can you buy only the extras in physical format at a reduced price-no you are supposed to buy the whole package again (resulting in a overwhelming sense off being ripped off, again).

major labels have been ripping us off for years and now they are reaping the consequences of that.

the reality is that music will always survive, people love it too much, it will just survive in different ways.

pop bands will play gigs at stadiums and charge upwards of £50 a ticket and make more money in 3 nights than we normal folk make in years.

small bands will continue because by and large they do it for the love and not for the profit (hopefully resulting in better quality), they will make their livelihood through other merchandise (t-shirts, tour only cd etc.) and playing gigs.

i think the futures bright myself.

One thing that defenders of free downloads (probably due to ignorance) always forget is that the only artists who can AFFORD to give away songs are those who are already rich, the NIN's or Radioheads of the world (respect to Saul Williams, who isn't particularly, mind you). I'm not defending record companies or the horribly slanted royalty formula of a major record contract, or the way that bands who do receive the elusive advances are shuffled along a bandwagon that haemhorrages money, but it is a fact that it is only those who are in a position to pay their rent solely through music who are able to practise and write enough to really refine their craft. (again obviously there are plenty of signed retards who do nothing of the sort and are happy to stagnate). The only way to develop and maintain the interesting and original bands of this world is to be prepared to pay for the time they spend making music.

The argument for making cd's £5 makes me kind of sick... I'm 40, and that's what I used to pay when I was a kid, but relative to the cost of living that was WAY higher (A Yorkie was considered outrageously expensive when it came out, priced at 15p!). Most cd's cost about a tenner, which is 3 pints of beer... just what value do you so-called music lovers place on that commodity when undoubtedly you'd think nothing of spending double the cost of a CD on an irrelevant piss up?? I think there is a whole lot of the british something-for-nothing disease in this argument, the same disease that makes people in this country sit on their increasingly obese arses and believe they deserve the world on a plate.

Does anyone else find it a bit rich that the BPI don't like 'freetards' stealing from their members, but they're very happy to lobby parliament to extend copyright and steal away music that rightfully belongs in the public domain? Holding hands with Cliff Richard, Disney and the Church of Scientology, the BPI are determined not to allow music that should rightfully enter the public domain to do so.

If the BPI are successful, the end result is two-fold:
- The public will be deprived of recordings that would rightfully have expired in copyright, after record labels have had 50 years to make their vast profits
- The record labels can continue to lock away artists backcatalogues, leaving them unheard and unavailable, whilst continuing to charge extortionate prices for re-releases of old material.

It's a shame that the record industry can't be put to a slow death on better (non-illegal) terms, but it's hard to feel sorry for these "creative people" (haha) who have spent the last few decades screwing over the consumer at every money-grabbing opportunity.

*and when I'm done with the violin perhaps the BPI could help to lock away my recording for the next 95 years.

you must be a very ignorant man.

I may be feeding into Matt's argument but for me downloading through P2P only sees me spending more on music than ever before.

That said I have not bought a single CD in a record store in 18 months but in that time I have been to over 150 gigs/festivals, bought close to 100 CDs from bands at gigs (or direct from 'small' label websites) as well as countless other bits of merchandise.

I can't count how many new bands I've got into from downloading their music and then gone on to see them live, buy merchandise and from there been introduced to other bands on their label.

I consciously want to make sure that as money as I have to spend on music goes into the pockets of the bands I love and not to the major labels or the big chain record stores.

all i want to add...i use illegal downloading to hear the music/album of artists other people talk about/review. If i like it, most likely i'll see them live and buy the physical album. For this reason i'd don't feel that i'm doing anything wrong. Without P2P I wouldn't have come into contact with as much (new) music.

But the record industry are being hypocrites as well. They shout about protecting copyright and the rights of artists to be paid for their work but at the same time, professional photographers are being asked to sign releases like the one below in order to photograph bands. Give up copyright for the princely sum of £1?? If we were paid properly by magazines maybe there wouldn't be a need to be able to relicence images to other publications afterwards but the fact of the matter is mag's can't afford to pay every photographer they send out to cover a gig which may or may not end up being published so we have to rely on being able to relicence to cover our costs. If it was just the big artists doing this I could understand it but the release below was for a support act! Do they not understand that good photography helps them?

I can understand that artists need to protect their merchandise revenue. No respectable photographer would risk the damage to their reputation by getting involved with bootlegged merchandise. In fact in most cases bootleg posters/t-shirts etc are usually created with images that have been stolen from the original photographer, just have a look on ebay for the amount of ting tings merchandise that is available using photographs stolen from Karen McBride. I'm not saying who's right and wrong in this argument, but come on music industry if you want to be taken seriously then start respecting the copyright of artists in other professions!

PHOTOGRAPHIC RELEASE FORM
FROM: RAW POWER MANAGEMENT LIMITED
of Bridle House, 36 Bridle Lane, London W1F 9BZ, UNITED KINGDOM
(for and on behalf of the Artist and hereinafter referred to as “We”, “we”, “us” or “our” which
expression shall include our successors in title and assigns)
TO: ……………………………………………………………………………………………………….
of address as printed below
(hereinafter referred to as “You”, “you”, or “your”)
ARTIST: …………………………………… DATE OF PHOTOGRAPHY: ……………………………………………
VENUE: ………………………………………………. AUTHORISED PUBLICATION / WEBSITE: …………………………….
This letter (“this Agreement”), when signed by you, shall form the agreement between you and us for the mutual benefit of you, us and
the Artist, to photograph the above-mentioned artist (“the Artist”) on the terms below mentioned.
1. In consideration of the payment by us to you of the sum of £1 (one pound) (the receipt and sufficiency of which you hereby
acknowledge) and in consideration of us allowing you access to the Artist only for the purposes of taking a photograph or
photographs of the Artist at the Venue on the Date of Photography (“the Photographs”) you warrant represent and undertake:
1.1 that the Photographs will be reproduced only in the ……………………………… issue of the Authorised Publication / Website;
1.2 that you will not allow any person, firm or company to reproduce the Photographs assign or license the intellectual property
rights and any other rights, save as is prescribed in paragraph 1, above without our prior written consent.
1.3 that save for the permitted exploitation referred to in clause 1.1 above you will not exploit the Photographs in any manner
without our prior written approval;
1.4 that you have or will bind the proprietors of Authorised Publication / Website and their agents to the terms of paragraph 1.2
above in writing;
1.5 that following our request you shall provide us with 1 (one) copy of each of the Photographs in such format as we shall request.
2. You hereby agree that as between you and us and the Artist you hereby seek not to enforce any of your moral rights as author of the
Photographs within the meaning of Chapter IV Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988. Notwithstanding the foregoing we hereby
agree to use our reasonable endeavours to procure that you are credited as the creator of the Photograph(s) provided always that our
failure to do so shall not constitute a breach of this Agreement.
3. You grant to us and/or the Artist the exclusive right to exploit the Photographs throughout the world in perpetuity in any manner
without any further payment to you.
4. You agree to indemnify and hold us and/or the Artist and/or his/her agents harmless from and against all actions, claims, demands
and costs suffered or incurred by them as a result of a breach by you of any term of this release form.
5. This Agreement shall be subject to the laws of England and the parties hereto submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the English
courts.
Signed by : Read and Agreed
………………………………… …………………………………
For and on behalf of Signed By
RAW POWER MANAGEMENT LIMITED
Date: …………………………. Date: ………………………….
Accepted & Agreed
Print Name …………………………….
Print Address …………………………….
…………………………….
…………………………….
…………………………….
…………………………….
E-mail …………………………….
Mobile …………………………….

british society should be particularly proud of the way we've brought up said 'kids' to be ignorant freeloaders. Maybe it's not just this country, but I find it truly scary the amount of people who have stopped associating material acquisition with hard work. There is no difference between the problems caused by the abstraction of music into just another form of digital content and the abstraction of money into much the same thing. The latter has led to the near collapse of the financial system, and the former is capable of wreaking enormous damage on the whole world of music. I'm afraid I absolutely disagree with placating, or even accomodating the 'kids' who believe that music collections should not impact on their pockets. I don't think bands also do enough to assemble proper albums, rather than just collections of similarly aged songs, and certainly the packaging of a cd has always been way less desirable than a 12" record...and maybe those people producing albums should perhaps try to do some innovation as to how to make the whole package more attractive... a CD digipack doesn't quite have the same impact as a gatefold vinyl sleeve, eh!

The major omission in all of these discussions is the role of radio. Radio is free to air, and you can listen to music for nothing all day... and the likes of Radio 1 should realise that as public service broadcasters, almost their first and foremost duty should be breaking new music, and absolutely not heavily playlisting things which are already successful like commercial radio does. If the days are dwindling where someone hears a track on the radio and runs out and buys it, it's because the quality of radio has become worse and worse. The unfunny talk-shit 'entertainment' that is feisted on us by so-called 'music' stations has done every bit as much damage to the music industry as downloading. Moyles, O'Connell and all should be thrown out into early evening television as fast as is humanly possible.

As we all know folks at labels loooooooove sending promos to blogs for hype, who then share the track they've been sent.

Can the BPI tell the difference between a track on a major artist's as yet unreleased album, which their publicist has been giving to trade and a track on a major artist's as yet unreleased album which has been leaked?

Of course not.

and it's certainly interesting to have a debate in a public forum.

but i think the main problem with this article is that it seems to view "illegal" file sharing in a very black and white way. in my opinion there's a vast difference between the likes of indietorrents - which undoubtedly exists to spread new music, and goes to great lengths to enforce a code of conduct and avoid letting people share music that the labels and bands have expressly requested not be shared, and soulseek that's an open forum with everything up for grabs and no quality control.

i think the bpi has to be accepting of that, and work with the good sites, to promote music that's otherwise unattainable. if someone wants something taken down it should be, but there shouldn't be an assumption that that's always the case.

freetard? after I read that it sort of voided any decent points that he made in the rest of his argument.

when it would cost thousands to fill them? it's just hypocrisy, making money where you can, and demonising and alienating consumers when you can't... the industry has been largely reactive to change. for instance, CD prices have only plummeted because of the impact that piracy has had on demand. the fact is that people have been encouraged become used to having a greater range of music at their fingertips whenever they want and the old industry model can't offer this. one way that torrents could be trumped would be to provide unlimited streaming from a library for a set fee. sites such as last.fm appear to be headed that way, although wireless internet would need to be ubiquitous first in order it to work

...because our techies download it from the person uploading it (though it's slightly more technical than that). It's audio tested and verified before being sent to the ISP.

This process has stood up in the High Court and has been used to bring some 50k + cases across the EU.

Follow the link on "three step policy" above if you're interested.

is the future!

just seemed to basically say "yeah we're working on shutting down p2p servers and illegal file sharing and you're all wrong to do it, but hey guys, you can see our point right?"

It's more bollocks about the music industry being light years behind what's actually happening. It's why massive "trends" seem to appear in music.... because one band like The artic Monkey's make it big and suddenly labels clamber to sign up a thousand sound a likes. It's also the reason why bollocks radio edits and alike exist. It's all about the money to these guys. p2p and filesharing represents a loss of cash and it's that simple. "Yes, but they're are a business". Agreed, but music isn't about business. At least it shouldn't be. No-one marvels at Lennon's songs and thinks "he must have made a packet on that" or hears Nirvana and thinks "I hope Kurt managed to get all the royalties he rightly deserved for that excellent tune".

Music is emotion and life. Not business. "I hope we're not alone thinking this". Well you are. you know you are. It's been said for years and years but millions. In what other industry is the poduct made by you, that the record complany market, but if you don't sell enough, you are in debt to them? It's bollocks. Ironically, this situation kind of reminds me of BT in the late 80s. It's not until they got competition they had to become a better company, and now, with the record labels finally losing power after 60 years of popular music, they're going to have to do the same thing too.

I can only presume that after this debate CDs will be a uniform £5 and digital downloads <£3. Thank God we cleared that up.

What's that you say? Industry bigwigs with no musical talent have big mortgages? Oh well, back to p2p then.

Basically - there is no reasonable middle ground. Itunes is shite, CDs are too expensive for what you get.