MAKING UNAUTHORISED COPIES OF ANYTHING IS THEFT. IT'S AS SIMPLE AS THAT. MAYBE THE SLEDGEHAMMER TO CRACK A WALNUT APPROACH IS WHAT IT IS BUT SOMETHING'S GOT TO BE DONE. NOW I DON'T SHED NO TEARS FOR THE 'MAJORS' BUT MAYBE THEY SHOULD GO AFTER THE ORGANISATIONS THAT ARE FACILITATING THIS THEFT. PEOPLE THINK THAT THEY'RE NOT PAYING 'THE MAN' BY GETTING THEIR MUSIC FROM THESE PLACES BUT THEY INVARIABLY GET SOLD OFF TO 'THE MAN' BY THE SHITEHAWKE COMPUER GEEKS THAT STARTED THEM. MY POINT IS THAT SOME FUCKER IS GETTING PAID FOR THESE ILLEGAL TRANSACTIONS AND IT CERTAINLY ISN'T THE ARTISTS, THAT'S FOR SURE. TIME TO GET WISE.

OK, so something's got to be done. After all, there does need to be some response to the internet I agree.

The question is what needs to be done and who by?

You seem entirely focused on "going after" people, whether that be music fans or whether that be somebody else.

But really, is that the most imaginative response to the internet that we as artists can muster?

Us supposedly creative people can't come up with anything more creative than a set of bailiffs and lawyers?

The fact is that recorded music has little value. And the reason for that is because its so easy to duplicate. And anything easy to duplicate is low on cost.

All technological innovation drives cost down as it reduces the amount of labour it takes to duplicate an item.

It's why mass production in factories is cheaper than handmade and bespoke.

Recorded music that is stored in a file is as cheap as it can get. It takes a mere click to duplicate it.

And as the technology gets better it won't just be mp3's that are passed about, but cd quality wav files.

We can either stamp our feet and call in the police, or we can accept that we're trying to legalistically impose a value on something that no longer has it.

By accepting the reality, we as musicians will be in a far better position because our response will be to seek out a new model, not to send out enforcers to artificially prop up the old one through threats and intimidation.

Let's put our energies into that new model.

Some ideas:

a) Buskernomics - let your fans decide how much to pay just like buskers do. Radiohead have now adopted this strategy and early reports show that people are paying far more than the 45 cent minimum even though they don't have to. My experience of this predates Radiohead and I can report something similar.

b) Public subscription - seek payment from fans and donors before release then when you've hit the target figure release it online to everyone for free.

c) Sponsorship - get organisations and companies to sponsor your recordings in return for advertising on your website and on CD inlays.

d) Promotions - use recordings as a promotional tool for stuff that can't be duplicated so easily. Live gigs for instance. Tshirts. In other words seek to build a fanbase and use your recorded music as a tool to do it.

After all, your live gig in Chester showing your song Badabing is on Youtube at the moment. I don't know who put it there but whoever did is doing you a favour.

I always find it odd that bands will happily do live gig after live gig for free but will get riled about someone sharing their recorded music. And what reason is given for playing for free? Exposure. The desire to be heard by an audience.

But its easier to get exposure online to a far bigger audience than you can manage doing gig after gig after gig.

My You Are My Addiction video on YouTube has been seen by hundreds of people. And all I needed to do was upload it. How many gigs and hours of live performance would I have to do in order to match that in terms of exposure?

I think musicians who seek to lock everything down are looking in the wrong direction.

We need to look towards what the new model is. Maybe none of my four suggestions are it. But the old model is definitely not it. By clinging to it, we're not doing anyone any favours and in my view, it's up to us to defend people like Jammie Thomas and the other 26,000 who have been hunted down in this way.

It's in the interests of music fans and us musicians alike.

Peace

Al

I personally think mp3's are the greatest swindle ever created. Stealing a CD is theft. You would have taken a legitimately created product of an independent quality deemed releaseable by an artist illegally. Downloading music on the other hand is copying a file, often of inferior quality, to listen to an artist any way possible. If someone downloads inferior quality tracks and sells them on then that is piracy, but downloading for personal use should be perfectly legitimate, and what's more it massively promotes the artists. Had it not been for Napster, there's no way I would have anywhere near the number of CD's I do now, as that was at it's peak just as I was first getting into music in a big way.

Hi David

Thanks for your shout.

One thing I'd say though is that in the near future I don't believe mp3's will exist. As broadband gets ever more broad, what will happen is that the wav file itself will be trasported across the net.

Then these files won't be of inferior quality to the cd but exactly the same.

Al

I WOULD NEVER ADVOCATE THE HUNTING DOWN OF MUSIC FANS FOR 'TRADTITIONAL' HOME PIRACY{even tho' my initial response my have appeared to do that} WE'VE ALL DONE IT AND STILL DO. FOR SOMEONE TO TAKE THE TIME TO DO THIS PERSONALLY WOULD BE, FOR ME, A COMPLIMENT. I AGREE THAT THIS INTERNET IS A FINE THING FOR OUR PROMOTION AND THAT, AS IT APPEARS, THE OLD BUSINESS MODEL IS DYING. YOUR BUSKERNOMICS POSES THE QUESTION; SHOULD THIS MUSIC BE FREE? AND THIS IS A GOOD THING AS IT MAKES PEOPLE REALISE, ONCE MORE, THAT IT HAS A VALUE AND THEY WILL THEREFORE VALUE IT. THIS COULD COUNTERACT THE SELF PROMOTING BULLSHIT COMING FROM ALAN MCGEE{he'll say anything to get on 'hardtalk'}WHO IS GIVING AWAY ALL OF HIS BANDS MUSIC TO TRY TO PROVE HIS FUCKED UP NOTION OF THE FUTURE.

AS REGARDS TO HAPPILY PLAYING FOR FREE, WELL AT THE MO' I DON'T THINK MERCHANDISING WOULD FILL THE GAPS AS EVEN AT A LOW LEVEL, GIGGING WAS ALWAYS A PROMOTIONAL TOOL TO SHIFT SOME C.D.s AND IN MOST CASES WAS CONSIDERED A 'LOSS LEADER'. THEREFORE IT WAS FUNDED UNDER 'TOUR SUPPORT' BY THE RECORD COMPANIES {i.e. it never was recoupable from the band} WITH THESE SALES OUT OF THE EQUATION, THE MACHINE WILL GRIND TO A HALT.

IF SOMEBODY TAKES ONE OF OUR ALBUMS TO THEIR FRIENDS HOUSE TO COPY, MAYBE SMOKE A JOINT OR THREE IN THE PROCESS THEN I HOPE THEY ENJOY IT THOROUGHLY.

IF THE BOSS OF NAPSTER IS DRIVING ABOUT IN AN ASTON MARTIN ON THE PROCEEDS OF MY MUSIC{wishful thinking...}

I'LL GO AROUND TO HIS HOUSE AND SHOOT HIS DOG.

GOOD ON YER FOR THROWING THIS ONE INTO THE AIR MATE!

Awwww the poor dog. What did he do? Hehehe.

And I can see that you're not advocating attacking music fans.

Merchandising wouldn't fill the gap for artists who aren't mega I agree, but what about the boss of Tetley or Carlsberg riding round in an Aston Martin based on the unpaid live gigs you do that sell his ale.

Should his dog get himself a bulletproof kennel too?

There has to be another model. My fundamental view is that recorded music, once out there, has no value.

So the question is, what do musicians do? Moreover what do composers and writers do, as they may not even have the capacity to gig.

I like the public subscription model where, much lik a ransom note, the music is not released until you're paid up front. And I like the sponsorship model where organisations and companies pay to sponsor the music.

But it's not complete I agree. Yet this is really where we need to focus our creative energies - at building new models, not attempting to keep the old model artificially alive.

And we need to start creating ways in which we are always paid for live gigs. If you bring 30 people to a live gig, the alcahol venders will probably sell around £150 worth of alcahol.

How much of that goes to your band? Almost always none.

In my view, musicians need to stop thinking so much about how we "make it big" and think more about how we get paid in the here and now.

And the biggest problem we face is that poeple who perform original music (ie not covers, not tribute bands) hardly ever get paid at all.

That's a bigger threat to musical creativity than anything else in the industry that I can see.

Peace

Al

Hi Alun, I'm from Georgetown but on the other side of Earth. I don't know your music yet but I am sure going to find out. Even so, I am already a fan of yours. If not for your music, for your ideals then. You embody my view of what true artistes should be. What you seek is appreciation of your art and not driven primarily by monetary reward. For this, I salute you. But I do believe that good art will be rewarded without artistes having to consciously seek it. I also believe that buskernomics will work, as Radiohead have proven so far. You must persevere for other struggling artists sake. My personal investment in recorded music exceed the worth of my hi-fi equipment many times over. And my equipment have evolved over the years. Do I get a thanks from RIAA? No, they want to sue me for file sharing. Your views and that of Trent Reznor make me realize that I and the artistes whom I support have been ripped off by RIAA all this while. Their shares float mightily by overcharging us consumers and paying a meager royalty to the artists that make the music. That's it, from now on, I pay to the artist direct. On another note, I am amused that you predict bandwidth will improve to a point where CD quality wav files can be downloaded with ease. Have you heard of WavPack? If not, goto hydrogenaudio.org and find out. But I must warn you. Do not spend too much time there. It might steal your time from making music.

Hi beyond

thanks so much for your message. i really appreciated the kind words and we seem on each other's wavelength.

i had a peek round your forum and its really interesting stuff,

keep in touch

al