The 'It's STILL not alright’ debate continues

In light of the recent blog debate started by the UK artist Lily Allen and then being taken down. I have decided to take up the helm here and reinstate the debate to continue.
It is STILL not ok for someone to illegally share and freely distribute an artist song file without the artist OR label agreeing to do so. illegal file sharing is no different to dubious recording company practices reportedly ripping off an artist.

I have added a rule to the debate

Those who agree/disagree please write your views on this blog freely
Those who don’t agree/disagree simply make a point rather than abuse this blog insulting anyone who might just agree/disagree with the management of artist and industry media assets online.

I (and wider UK creative industries) CANNOT sit by and dumbly support non-consented wholesale theft and viral distribution, sharing or diffusion of created goods for FREE by unauthorised individuals with no vested interest in an artistic career ever developing long-term. The UK creative industries cannot allow unauthorised leaks or P2P file sharing without prior consent.

For those struggling with this view I give TWO simple analogies on this renewed blog debate:

1. High Street Banks do not allow unapproved credit or spending on accounts and then sit by watching the individual then claim more rights than the bank itself for not previously providing those funds. Their accounts would simply be instantly shut down for smaller sums than 1,000 -10,000 stolen files of value. I hear no one complaining about that issue at all...except on bank charges! (fines for unauthorised take)

2. I should also be able to determine the ‘FREE’ right to take the keys to your house or car and I will share it with others for an undetermined amount of time at your OWN cost. Surely that’s ok, as well?

I hope the anti-file sharing debate now continues and appeals to those who like me and many, many good people on the previous Lily Allen blog might have another realistic valuable view against digital management, theft and illegal and non consented online distribution and sharing.

The BIG POINT HERE is NOT 'Sharing', it is the point about the importance for ANY artist and label deciding when OR if a song file can or cannot be shared and distributed and not 'careless' illegal file sharing and distribution without consent and taking valuble earnings away from the artist before they can tour, especially impacting on the new breed of DIY artists.

The ‘STILL not alright’ debate continues below with the opening post.


Friday, 30 October 2009

The ‘STILL not alright’ debate continues with the opening post as follows:

The ‘STILL not alright’ debate continues with the opening post as follows

I like many, many other people inside our industry do not agree with unauthorised file sharing (music, films, books) at any level.

What we all will consider (including the artists) is controlled giveaways and promotional copies being given away to the real music fans (attending paid gigs) and any other choices made by the right holders or artists, as and when, they decide.
 I believe at the end of the day no pirate/file sharing serial abuser is going to stop legitimate and managed legislation coming into effect simply because some hysterically claim a right to want to own more free stolen goods.

How about sharing your very own wages first? We might then start a utopian free-for-all.


  1. I agree...the whole idea is insane when you really think it through..good to see this debate rolling again!

  2. "no pirate/file-sharing serial abuser is going to stop legitimate and managed legislation coming into effect"

    No legislation is going to stop it either my friend ;)

  3. Music is a basic human right. It's something bigger than just a bank or private property.

    There are ways to monetize music, but as technology becomes more advanced (as it has already proven to be), it becomes a less viable option to solely focus on profiting on digital distribution. Focus on the tangible things like physical media, merchandise, live performance, and bringing quality and value to the music itself.

    Don't get boxed into the same old format, it's a incredibly expensive process to fight and you stand to gain a much wider audience from not alienating people who by word-of-mouth recommend and support the artists they download from whether legally or illegally. There's an old model the industry strives to maintain, and that's honestly hurting EVERYONE more than the action of music piracy itself.

  4. Ok here we go again.....
    quick question... did you actually go to school or is English your second language? Since the grammar in terrible. (apologies if it is your second Language!)

    Ok response to your first point (If I can under stand it correctly)
    Banks DO ALLOW unauthorised spending on an account (Ever had that little £38 charge when you go over your overdraft limit? I'm sure many in your employ have, ask them about it.)

    As to point 2
    How many of the artists attached to the "BIG 5" labels have complained about failures by the Labels to pay them their royalties!! some band go years before seeing the monies that are rightfully theirs (That was BEFORE P2P was prevalent). Also their are a few artist who will NEVER see royalties.

    Ask Edwyn Collins about the Labels selling his song WITHOUT His permission (He Owns all the rights to his songs) and not giving him ANY royalties, now THAT is illegal.

    I'm sure you are well meaning in this, since you are wanting to keep you and your staff employed. But don't you think you have to take another look at your business model? the heyday of the "rock'n'roll" lifestyle of the 70's & 80's is long gone. It's time to take a hard look at the business in general. The Big5 are trying to make the claim that they are "Too big to fail", that if they fail many smaller artists will never make any money (unlike now where the small artist make money but never see it for 2 or more years if lucky). But in reality without the Big5, the music world will be a better, brighter place, with more creativity and less "throw away bubble-gum cookie-cutter" pop that has been filling the charts for the past 10 years!! Now if you don't make Number 1 in your first or second release, your label drops you like a stone. Take a look at your record collection! How many of your favourite artists or groups from the 70's or 80's ever have more than a handful of top 10 hits? Not many I'm sure. The Industry is now more focused on the bottom line! If they don't get a hit with the first album then they are not worth the money and dropped!

    I'm sure this post will not stay up long since I'm not agreeing with you, but a real discussion requires 2 sides. I'm positive you're not wanting a real discussion.

    If you want to rant, then rant away but please don't try to hide behind an attempt at a discussion that is, in the end, doing you and your artists a huge dis-service.


  5. "Those who agree please write your views on this blog freely
    Those who don’t agree simply make a point rather than abuse this blog insulting anyone who might just disagree with the outdated experiement and management of artist and industry media assets online."
    So those who agree can insult others and abuse this blog? Because that's how I understand that. Anti-pirates can write "freely", pirates have to write without insults and abuse. So does that mean "freely" allows to use insults and abuse? Alright then!
    I agree that piracy is bad.
    You are all friggen morons and idiots who don't understand a shit from this friggen life, go get some help retards!

    I will be surprised if you don't delete this comment, as it seems like you are running this blog to create a world where those who agree with you are the only ones allowed to say what they want to.

  6. if legislation dont work then the format will change OR drop the current format entirely to something much more intelligent...the rightholders will win eventually...the non rightholder filesharer has no money...otherwise they would buy audio file quality legitimate files, AS THE ARTIST INTENDED..not (extremely dodgy mono in some case) versions of stereo files..

  7. grammer????...who cares here????...
    YES YES YES..most of the audio files online are incorrect in SO much detail including credits and names of songs..length of songs...orginal recording details...
    what we ALL need is quality audio that is given away by the authorised people as a legit freebie...then WE DO HAVE a GOOD DEAL..not a rip off deal..I dont care How much that costs per file...its way cheaper than vinyl or the record shop.
    Well done for launching this again..I am fed UP of files with viruses jamming my iPod and MAC/PC
    (excuse me grammer 'Old Boy'ha ha :)
    when did a blog ever adhere to grammer????

  8. Hi all
    I do indeed wish for a discussion and all comments will prove the point to some comments here.
    Thanks to date.
    please take note

    Truly this is all about new music for me and allowing it to develop, its also about he artist and label deciding when and how and WHAT.contrary to common online feeds..most new artists are terrified of lost material, after hours of work getting it right AND after years sacrificing time and meaningful jobs for their developing art.

    Most labels could afford to do special limited releases AND FREE giveaways that might NOT have occurred had they not sold digital downloads to fund the limited free and promoted releases.ITS THAT SIMPLE.
    Potentially music fans are missing out on things not yet conceived due to restricted budgets. tee shirts at £20-30 Plus now???...they used to be given away with the album promotion!!

    I agree with the comment above that mentions should 'legislation not help' the format will cease to evolve and be replaced by something more defiant. (that would be a big prize for someone out there..a soft developer.

    The rightholders will win because they have the interests to protect here and the funds.
    They are liable for chasing down the abuse.

    If someone stole my neighbours car to share out for free I would notbalme them for doing something about it...however If someone DARE steal a file sharers network,connection OR laptop OR iPod, the user simply freaks out over their rights of stolen goods..Am I Meant to understand or care at that point?
    They stole so anyone can that the message here??? Surely not??

    Like it or not I simply dont agree to giving people's files away (its insane)...should i do that without prior permission I would have no Job and be sued.
    Which means its not just me who disagrees out there.
    You buy a meal in a restaurant for yourself and watch someone else eat it...every single time you buy that meal.

    Debate onwards..

  9. You plainly have little knowledge of what you are talking about, and that which is based on fact is grossly exaggerated - and dont even mention the banks and unapproved credits.......

    Please take down your blog, its not solving anything.

  10. I appear to have PLAINLY made more comments than some statements 'eltons wig' and i cannot see much great resolvement to the contrary as yet?

    the banks are the same point to drive home as is the council tax, your mobile credit and the BBC licence fee.NO fee = no services.
    No funds for broadband no downloads, no funds for a Pc/MAc/iPOd, no files either.

    The blog remains..its legally free to talk and publish this debate, if you wish to participate. Sorry you do not agree.

  11. Hi Solitaire,

    i also do not support blatant copyright infringement from any party including a recording company (as stated above) on IP not owned by the company and now owned by the artist.
    Labels selling material WITHOUT permission is also illegal.
    I 100% agree and may I wish you luck in resuming that rightful payment stream back to Edwyn C.
    I would name and shame them with the bought evidence (songs/CD's) if at all possible?? Or perhaps have a royaltyauditor go for it. Though i do presume that might have already occurred here and these sold units you mention are 'OFF the radar'?
    Outrageous activity and not at all helpful.

  12. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

  13. An interesting article, that sort of puts a spanner in your's, the Label's and lilly's theory.

    It's ALL still alright...

  14. Sharing is caring. Sharing is free advertising. Sharing is bypassing the corporations who take the big slice of the pie and leave the crumbs for the artist.

    P2P is a technology that is allowing artists more freedom than they've ever had. They get to keep control of their career, instead of becoming slaves to the multi-billion dollar corporations.

  15. Well for me and most others....The BIG POINT HERE is NOT 'Sharing' it is the point about the importance for ANY artist and label deciding when OR if a song file can or cannot be shared and distributed and not 'careless' illegal file sharing and distribution without consent. The artist creates works and NEEDS to have a say on what then occurs as apart of artist empowerment.
    illegal file sharing is not artist empowerment...the artist has no power or control at that point.Most would like to decide in my opinion.

    its the same as record companies ripping them off and then that issue IRONICALLY being used as an excuse for illegal file sharing to then be ok.

    Having a song on the radio or in a high street shop is also sharing at this point...

  16. the report thanks will link it in below.
    At the reported £77 per year from each illegal file sharer (they REALLY dont sound TOO keen to me with T-shirts at £20-30 each and unsigned bands playing at a good value £3-5 door price)) if true. So I believe this report has NOTgonefar enough. SOME young people spend more than that on vinyl OR GIGS in one month!

    ..and it stated
    ''We have a generation of young people who don't have any concept of music as a paid-for commodity'' reported there is the big problem for me.(even if we could sell at 20p,,its still a problem)
    Perhaps we can also have the same for ALL student holidays to Thailand,all full spec iPods free with their coco pops, or mountian bikes...the same people dont seem to complain about visa/baggage charges being hiked above the expected.

    Thereport sound like anexcuse to keep music devalued by people notmaking music again for me..sorry its a very week argument for me.

    bit like the ad generated music payment streams
    and hopeless deals made by some comapnies on behalf of theior artist. this report is in the same camp. dictating a silly price point per annum.

  17. So let me get this straight... I have a song, I obtained it legally, now i decide to randomly Snail Mail it to 100,000 people using CD's. This would be completely legal due to the fact that once I buy something I CAN DO WHAT I WANT WITH IT, but sharing it over the internet so 100,000 people who WANT it isn't?

  18. Pocket, since when is the unauthorized and illegal copying and distribution of a copyrighted work legal?

    You own the plastic cd.

    You license the music on it.

    It's no wonder this debate grows complicated. There are second graders posting opinions here.

  19. Thankfully they are in a minority. Well said...
    more like '2nd de-graders' when abusing audio content it seems.