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.


Thanks
Mark

Saturday, 14 November 2009

The death of the music industry graph 2009

http://www.informationisbeautiful.net/2009/the-death-of-the-music-industry/

Forget stats..just look at these images representing the retrospective declines

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/01/opinion/01blow.html?_r=3

This is also an interesting article , if true on the ground, the trend  to not illegally share is increasing, which is helpful support on longer term aims.

http://musically.com/blog/2009/07/13/filesharing-down-by-a-third-among-uk-teens/

11 comments:

  1. The death of the music industry is greatly exaggerated. The grapics here come from only one segment of music sales (formats like CDs) - there's a lot more revenue streams for musicians than are being acccounted for here.

    See the comments on the article (in particular Bill Stalla) to see that this is not all it appears to be.

    As to the stats about file sharing in decline, I'm not sure how that squares against the fact that YouTube etc. are free. Even if it wasn't, do you think that artists would see any of the money that the RIAA and IFPI would cream off Google, et. al.?

    ReplyDelete
  2. When I last looked into the problem, file sharing effected that very same market directly shown in the graphic, vinyl CD, tape etc etc..including the impact of download as well...you cannot have a cliff face dive off in sales unless something cauised the probelm. Digi File sharing caused the problem. So the industry has gone from being able to take risks on new bands to now only releasing safe hit acts.

    The other latched on sales for bands such as merchandise are not too be confused with file sharing, or justify its illegal distributuion.
    if thats the case then the rightsholders should have first payout on merchandise/other sales as well, as their orginal product helped increase sales for other companies (merch). simply due to effect of profit movement, and its files being used illegally as free promotion tools for increasing merchandise and sales elsewhere. Its not occurring though in great numbers.

    ReplyDelete
  3. It's hard to take anything you say seriously when you don't even understand what "theft" is and make laughably bad "analogies" that a 5th grader could understand are wrong.

    ReplyDelete
  4. anonymous and ignorant statements are futile.
    So when the laws change it's because we are all wrong is it? I don't think so....watch this space and see who's 5th grading then.
    Theft is theft, why are there so many
    out-of-court settlements pleaded by file abusers? That's...Classic Comedy!

    ReplyDelete
  5. "Theft is theft?"

    Please invest in a dictionary (or maybe you can "steal" the definition from Dictionary.com).

    Also, avoid useless tautologies.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Ha! so let's now all say the same thing twice...''Piracy is theft'' and the VERY people who need to know and digest 'what theft is' are the very one's pretending and pining on they do not understand what 'theft is' until they get to court or tracked.
    Moving on now.....
    ''The UK Digital Economy Bill, including the curbing of illegal P2P filesharing, will form part of the legislative programme in the final months of this Government after it being addressed in The Queen’s speech today (18.11.09)...thats step one out of the way then..and very well done to all concerned! ;).

    ReplyDelete
  7. I see you're still dodging the fact that it is not theft, that you have no interest in an honest debate, are incapable of forming a coherent and logical argument, and that you are ignorant of the facts and instead resort to useless ad hominem.

    So, why haven't you asked for Lily, the 3-time copyright "thief," to be thrown in jail?

    ReplyDelete
  8. I see your still dodging 'anonymously'..:0)

    Piracy is theft..please see the courts or the Police...if you cannot believe me???
    They are the immediate accessible legal experts and they can put your arguement to bed in 5 minutes or less.
    Listen to them carefully, if you are really serious and endlessly hoping to prove you are right here. Let them back you up?
    We have other things to do, such as discuss how to better improve the many laws already in place for illegal copyright abuse.Bye Bye...

    ReplyDelete
  9. "I see your still dodging 'anonymously'..:0)"

    Oh look, more ad hominem. Shocking.

    "Piracy is theft..please see the courts"

    Oh, you mean, like this one?

    http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=search&court=US&case=/us/473/207.html

    "or the Police...if you cannot believe me???"

    You mean the police that arrest pirates, drag them into criminal court, and then throw them in jail? Oh, wait, piracy is a civil copyright infringement.

    "They are the immediate accessible legal experts and they can put your arguement to bed in 5 minutes or less."

    Funny, in 30 seconds I can access a court case explicitly describing how copyright infringement is not theft. The dictionary has a similar explanation, which I notice you still have not bothered to read.

    "Listen to them carefully, if you are really serious and endlessly hoping to prove you are right here. Let them back you up?"

    If you insist.

    "We have other things to do, such as discuss how to better improve the many laws already in place for illegal copyright abuse."

    Funny, I thought this was supposed to be a "debate", not a one-sided discussion about how to further alienate consumers by changing laws to favor an industry.

    "Bye Bye..."

    Oh, are you going to go read the dictionary now? Have fun!

    ReplyDelete
  10. Well you could break it down this way if you wish to vent,hate and detest the fact that infringing and distributing other peoples work is always ok and a legal right of the abuser.

    However I rest my case...take your naive primary arguement to others in better legal professions than mine and lets hear back from you later, when they all back you up?
    If they don't you will have to accept your views are 100% wrong and there is no point in putting them forward repeatedly in this way.
    We all await the legal UK approvals you seem to think you have endorsing filesharing, mass distribution and piracy and stating none of these activities are theft or criminal offences. Be a long wait no doubt..

    ReplyDelete