As a musician should i continue to create new music?

[rancidpunk]

"No, not a uk voter or citizen but the uk is where i sell the majority of my records so i certainly feel entitled to take part in this debate as it affects me directly."
Have you got a Pirate Party in your country? If you won't tell us what country you come from, your artist name, your albums or any other thing about yourself we can't have a coherent debate. How do we know what laws apply in your anonymous country, are you Dutch and pissed of that you can't stop people from downloading your stuff so you came to us to complain. Give us something to work with otherwise you don't have a right to take part in deabating a needlessly circular argument. Filesharing copyrighted material is illegal in the UK so better to get yourself a UK lawyer and pursue the offenders, than agitate on a political party forum in the wrong country.

[NDR008]

I think some of us would enjoy the debate, only if it was less purely abstract, i.e. we had proper stances. You know where we stand - in the UK, you confuse policies that similar pirate parties came up with as given stances for us, when we are still forming policies. Further more, you drop things to a simple that 'our title is Pirate Party' - therefore we must be pro-piracy...

[chelsea]

Hello again,

First of all someone said that this debate was quite aggresieve - not my intention, i have put in a few smilies and tried to at least be a bit humourous, my crack about builders was meant that way. I suppose it is the nature of written communication to be open to be misunderstood. I haven't seen anyone's replies to me to be aggressieve either for whats thats worth.

I don't see why we can't have a debate without you knowing who i am. I'm not prepared to give that info, sorry. I do currently live in ireland if thats of any help. I don't believe there is a pirate party here. And yes i do very much feel that i am entitled to join in this debate for the reasons already stated.

Adjust to new business practices? No thank you, the law as it currently exists protects my business and i don't see why the law should be changed just because the means to break it has become more accessable. I've said already that i don't see the point in going after the end user. I'm sure most end user's already know that getting something for nothing is a little too good of a deal and there must be something wrong with. If free access to pirated material was cut off tomorrow the majority of people would shrug their shoulders and get on with things.

I wasn't aware of changes in april to uk copyright law, thanks for pointing that out. If it is as you've stated then its bit of an ass really. Artists want to protect their material not make life hard for those who've paid for it. Personally speaking i use a mp3 player that doesn't use DRM management as i want to be able to listen to my cds and records in the car. If thats now illeagal then i would certainly support a change in that law.

So what is the pirate partys uk position on dowloading copyright matieral. I understand you are still putting together an idea of the reforms you would like to see but what is your position on someone downloading for free one of my copyrighted works today without paying me?

To restate my position, especally for those who may have skimmed through the earlier posts is this:

- The lifetime of an artist + 75 years after death is a fair lenght of time for life of copyright for artisic work
- Downloading my work or physically taking it without paying me or my agents (ie record company) is theft
- There should be fair useage of work allowed ie back up copies etc. The change that affects in april 09 should be ammeded to allow for this.
- There should be proscutions of those who facilate this theft ie bit torrent site's and search engines which lead people to them. End users in effect should be 'decriminalised' ie take away the supply not the user.


Unless i'm missing something those are the main points we're debating on. What would be the pirate partys uk stance on those then please?

Also to the person who suggested i was being a bit dismissieve of any help the party could give me because of the name. Well, that is the name you have given yourselves and the assocations that come with it. You also say your are associated with the pirate party sweden who ran the pirate bay.org As i've already said i have seen my work availbe up there for download. Its then quite hard to see you as someone who wants to help me to be quiet honset. If i did tell you who i was and the titles of my release's would you stop them made avaible on the pirate bay. I emailed them once asking them to do that and i was ignored. Do you perhaps have a greater influnce with our swedish cousins?

[NDR008]

Hello again,

To restate my position, especally for those who may have skimmed through the earlier posts is this:

- The lifetime of an artist + 75 years after death is a fair lenght of time for life of copyright for artisic work
- Downloading my work or physically taking it without paying me or my agents (ie record company) is theft
- There should be fair useage of work allowed ie back up copies etc. The change that affects in april 09 should be ammeded to allow for this.
- There should be proscutions of those who facilate this theft ie bit torrent site's and search engines which lead people to them. End users in effect should be 'decriminalised' ie take away the supply not the user.

First off, let me point out, what I say, or anyone says here, is not neccessarily the party's position, but the opinion/debate of people that have an interest in PPUK or aligned with its core interest.

So:

a) The lifetime of an artist + 75 years after death is a fair lenght of time for life of copyright for artisic work
> From the gist of what's been discussed - we tend to disagree with such a lengthy copyright. It benefits you - perhaps. But just cause the law has currently made it beneficial to such businesses does not mean it should never be changed. When we realised not letting women vote was wrong - we made change. When something is decided to be wrong (and by wrong - not neccessarily completely wrong, just needs reform), the logic is to reform - under reform, people who previously benefited, will be uncomfortable - such as you of course - no answer will make everyone happy.
You made an example regarding building a farm or something - someone countered your argument with the builder.

b) Downloading my work or physically taking it without paying me or my agents (ie record company) is theft
> We do not call it theft. You want to stand your ground on a moral sense, but we explained that on a technical/ethical ground it is copying - not stealing. Hence the name of the law - copyright. The right to copy (is not given to the end user). Before anyone goes further on this PPUK's stand is NOT to legalise or encourage illegal file sharing.
Also since this cannot be policed - it is wrong to start having a big brother attitude taping into everything we do and make society less safe and more spy crazy. Also making technology harder to use for people who use file-sharing for LEGAL reasons.
And even so, the current law breakers downloading copyrighted material are being charged with ludicras fines. Which are even more sane if we had to consider studies that completely counter the claim that their download = lost SALES. But let us assume the latter true - even then, the fine is too high and insane - almost like a random number "ooo let's see how much we can screw this offender for... judge seems dumb, or corrupt enough..."

c) There should be fair useage of work allowed ie back up copies etc. The change that affects in april 09 should be ammeded to allow for this.
> We agree, but that is just one case in point where copyright law has made it so hard to just lead a normal life.

d) There should be proscutions of those who facilate this theft ie bit torrent site's and search engines which lead people to them. End users in effect should be 'decriminalised' ie take away the supply not the user.
> Does that mean we should prosecute people who make guns because they can wage wars. Or metal refineries that provide metal for warfare and automotive making? Google provides a service like any search engine. The internet was society driven and SHOULD remain society driven. It is already wrong as it is that the internet is being split (some nations cannot access certain servers), content available only in certain geographic reasons... it is all very sad, because the net was built by people for each other to exist in a world without any geographical, skin colour, political or religious bias.
BELIEVE ME, I understand that this technology is damaging you (if we assume your claims in whole to be 100% accurate - which many are skeptical about). However, even if it is damaging to a sector we can't accept to ignore all the good things about it, and modify it to an extent - just for the sake of one sector.
Especially when:
a) Change is inevidable - you say you don't want to change - well though luck to an extent. In nature change is natural, living organisms that did not try to adapt - became extinct. Same is in society and economics.
b) People are proposing - productive alternative ways of making revenue.
c) History has repeated itself before - similar events have happened not just for radio, tapes, vinyls, vcrs and all the rest for music, but almost for any media. Guess what - most of these business are still around today when they eventually stopped screaming and came up with an idea. This time, with such an advanced technology - I feel law makers have been caught of gaurd and given in to industry. And now industry has gotten accustomed to yielding to this industry.

[chelsea]

Hello again,

To restate my position, especally for those who may have skimmed through the earlier posts is this:

- The lifetime of an artist + 75 years after death is a fair lenght of time for life of copyright for artisic work
- Downloading my work or physically taking it without paying me or my agents (ie record company) is theft
- There should be fair useage of work allowed ie back up copies etc. The change that affects in april 09 should be ammeded to allow for this.
- There should be proscutions of those who facilate this theft ie bit torrent site's and search engines which lead people to them. End users in effect should be 'decriminalised' ie take away the supply not the user.

First off, let me point out, what I say, or anyone says here, is not neccessarily the party's position, but the opinion/debate of people that have an interest in PPUK or aligned with its core interest.

So:

a) The lifetime of an artist + 75 years after death is a fair lenght of time for life of copyright for artisic work
> From the gist of what's been discussed - we tend to disagree with such a lengthy copyright. It benefits you - perhaps. But just cause the law has currently made it beneficial to such businesses does not mean it should never be changed. When we realised not letting women vote was wrong - we made change. When something is decided to be wrong (and by wrong - not neccessarily completely wrong, just needs reform), the logic is to reform - under reform, people who previously benefited, will be uncomfortable - such as you of course - no answer will make everyone happy.
You made an example regarding building a farm or something - someone countered your argument with the builder.

Yes my arguement here is i've created something which creates reveune. If i built a factory, or a farm or planted a tree i would be in a position to pass this on to my next generation. Why should copyright not be the same?
[/quote]
b) Downloading my work or physically taking it without paying me or my agents (ie record company) is theft
> We do not call it theft. You want to stand your ground on a moral sense, but we explained that on a technical/ethical ground it is copying - not stealing. Hence the name of the law - copyright. The right to copy (is not given to the end user). Before anyone goes further on this PPUK's stand is NOT to legalise or encourage illegal file sharing.
Also since this cannot be policed - it is wrong to start having a big brother attitude taping into everything we do and make society less safe and more spy crazy. Also making technology harder to use for people who use file-sharing for LEGAL reasons.
And even so, the current law breakers downloading copyrighted material are being charged with ludicras fines. Which are even more sane if we had to consider studies that completely counter the claim that their download = lost SALES. But let us assume the latter true - even then, the fine is too high and insane - almost like a random number "ooo let's see how much we can screw this offender for... judge seems dumb, or corrupt enough..."
[/quote]
Well i do call it theft. If you take something of value and do not pay that value and also in turn decrease the value of what you've taken, you have stolen the use of it from me. I see what you are trying to do with differenting between copying and stealing but that is just a matter of languange. Was it yourself earlier who used the anogoly of copying a car? I can't see the difference. If you do not pay for something but insist on owning it to enjoy the benefits of it you are doing what exactly???? You call it copying or call it trevor if you want, its still wrong. If your arguement is based on language and what something is called, well, i understand you (pirate party) wish to be a political party but thats going native pretty fast i reckon...
And could you differiate between what you call a morale arguement and an ethical arguement? If i make a morale arguement (according to yourself) what is different to you making an ethical arguement(according to yourself). I get the difference about technical but for me that doesn't stand up. Having the technology to do something doesn't make it right.
[/quote]
c) There should be fair useage of work allowed ie back up copies etc. The change that affects in april 09 should be ammeded to allow for this.
> We agree, but that is just one case in point where copyright law has made it so hard to just lead a normal life.
[/quote]
Glad we do share some ophions then Although i reckon the statment copyright law was made it hard to lead a normal life a little teenie bit totally over the top and dramatic
[/quote]
d) There should be proscutions of those who facilate this theft ie bit torrent site's and search engines which lead people to them. End users in effect should be 'decriminalised' ie take away the supply not the user.
> Does that mean we should prosecute people who make guns because they can wage wars. Or metal refineries that provide metal for warfare and automotive making? Google provides a service like any search engine. The internet was society driven and SHOULD remain society driven. It is already wrong as it is that the internet is being split (some nations cannot access certain servers), content available only in certain geographic reasons... it is all very sad, because the net was built by people for each other to exist in a world without any geographical, skin colour, political or religious bias.
BELIEVE ME, I understand that this technology is damaging you (if we assume your claims in whole to be 100% accurate - which many are skeptical about). However, even if it is damaging to a sector we can't accept to ignore all the good things about it, and modify it to an extent - just for the sake of one sector.
Especially when:
a) Change is inevidable - you say you don't want to change - well though luck to an extent. In nature change is natural, living organisms that did not try to adapt - became extinct. Same is in society and economics.
b) People are proposing - productive alternative ways of making revenue.
c) History has repeated itself before - similar events have happened not just for radio, tapes, vinyls, vcrs and all the rest for music, but almost for any media. Guess what - most of these business are still around today when they eventually stopped screaming and came up with an idea. This time, with such an advanced technology - I feel law makers have been caught of gaurd and given in to industry. And now industry has gotten accustomed to yielding to this industry.[/quote]

Its an offence to sell stolen goods isn't it? Which i think is a more relevant example than the ones your using. Which to be honset seem a little bit smokescreenish to me but there you go...

I argree with the idea of the net being a place to eisit without national boundarys. Why were some people (were you one of them? can't remeber) saying that they shouldn't be engaging in conversation with me about uk law?

Yes change is natural. The arguement for that justifing piriacy has been used since napster (remember them?). How about change that involves instead of new technologies being forever used to steal and put people down since the invention of, i don't know, iron? we use it for something nice and creative and not to screw over our neighbours?? Oops human nature, oh well... Anyway the way the entermainent industry is fighting this is changing so it will be interesting to see how it pans out.

Those alternative income streams have been around an awful lot longer than internet piracy. T-shirts, TV snyc etc weren't invented as a response to piracy. I've made the point already about this and why should i lose one income stream just because the technology exists to rob me? The technology exists to tap in to your neighbours eletricity supply without paying for it. Should we all give up electricity? Or should electricty providers prosecute to the full extent of the law people who do this so the rest of us can have electrity? Yep, they go with option b which is why your computer is presumbaly not powered by a hand crank!!

I wonder will history show that this little age of piracy was just a blip and once the industry learned how to protect itself it was all back to normal with music, tv and movies all still being made and everyone enjoying them.

ps i have my fingers crossed that i've got the quote working properly this time....

[rancidpunk]

Chelsea, I'm quite happy for the debate to continue and I realise that you are enjoying it as much as we are but could you at least let us know if you are in the EU or give us some context to work with. Perhaps an example of another artist who has similar problems to the ones you feel you have, anything would be good.
Comparing yourself to a factory, farm or tree is fair enough and I agree that it would be yours ad ifinitum, however the produce from such would not be yours forever, indeed it would be sold for a one off payment as it is a physical product. In a digital sense your argument does not work, as I can copy the material without depriving you of the original, which I can't do with apples. This is why copyright exists in the first place but to say that if you write a global superhit you and your decendants should continue to profit from it forever is plain daft, indeed it would be the same as me delivering a cargo in my lorry and expecting to be paid for doing so for the rest of my life. I do appreciate that artists don't produce a song a day and it takes a lot of effort and creative thought to produce a good song, but should that be seen as any more worthy than a doctor saving lives in casualty 12 hours a day for twenty years, I don't think so.

[EdmundRW]

OK, so just a couple of housekeeping 10cents as I think the broad points have been made by both sides. I am very pleased to hear that you haven't felt anyone's been aggressive - I thought some comments towards you did seem that way, but as you say it's the problem with the written word & contentious issues.

I personally agree that 'Pirate Party' is an unfortunate name with negative connotations that we could do without in order to make serious points about freedom of information etc and be taken more seriously. It was meant to be an ironic response to industry accusations but the irony is (understandably) lost on people who do view file-sharers as criminals. It's inherited from the Swedish Pirate Party which was not actually set up by the Pirate Bay but formed out of a reaction to that trial. Correct me if I'm wrong.

And Yes, I'm afraid you did mess up the quotes again

We shall see & history will judge - I think you will have to change your practices and expectations and ultimately it will be governments that give up the fight for the simple reason that they don't know the Nottingham Forest as well as Robin Hood does.

If you let me know the name of one of your albums I will check it out and if I like it I will paypal you a donation...

[EdmundRW]

This is why copyright exists in the first place but to say that if you write a global superhit you and your decendants should continue to profit from it forever is plain daft, indeed it would be the same as me delivering a cargo in my lorry and expecting to be paid for doing so for the rest of my life. I do appreciate that artists don't produce a song a day and it takes a lot of effort and creative thought to produce a good song, but should that be seen as any more worthy than a doctor saving lives in casualty 12 hours a day for twenty years, I don't think so.

This is good broad point about art and artists that I tend to agree with but I'm sure many others don't. It's just the fact that we can all be creative and many of us produce beautiful, culturally valid pieces of art or philosophy all our lives AND we work, and we never expect it to pay all our bills; just enough to sustain the materials and possibly reward the time a bit. When I write something my reason for doing it is that someone will see it and (hopefully enjoyed it) so I would be thrilled if my work was being disseminated through P2P. I do appreciate this isn't Chelsea's or a lot of other people's attitude.

[bobappleyard]

You also say your are associated with the pirate party sweden who ran the pirate bay.org

No they didn't.

[rancidpunk]

You also say your are associated with the pirate party sweden who ran the pirate bay.org

Not wishing to sound aggressive but have you done any research into either side of the argument?

"Know your enemy" Sun Tzu and Green Day

[bobappleyard]

You also say your are associated with the pirate party sweden who ran the pirate bay.org

Not wishing to sound aggressive but have you done any research into either side of the argument?

"Know your enemy" Sun Tzu and Green Day

And Rage Against the Machine.

I'm sure there are many others.

[valisk1]

Okay Chelsea, new revenue streams with the potential to replace the old enabled by digital distribution that I can think of.

Immediate direct sale of your music in mp3/aac/whatever format to the consumer from your website with DRM or without (without seems to be the way to go if you want people to actually buy it). You could do as a number of other artists do and stream your latest stuff on your site so people can tune in straight away to what you are doing.

Immediate sale of videos in the same manner.

Ability to build a community of your fans at your own website and have them pay a subscription for exclusive access to your work pre-release and serendipitous tracks. (Prince did very, very, very well out of this model.)

Pre-orders of albums/tracks direct from you.

Build your own mix CD for the fan to choose and you then burn it and send a personalized signed copy to them.

Rip and remix via a web ap and you do the same with a credit for them as remix artist. you may get some seriously good extra revenue from this if someone puts together a really good mix that you can then resell.

Buy and listen right now, with a CD in the post.

Advertising supported tracks,/videos that you could then deliberately seed on the P2P networks yourself.

Tracks and videos on the P2P with a personal message from you advising listeners to visit your site to buy the higher quality CDs.

Music streaming services that play your tracks along with others in a digital radio type format, with full bio pages and options to buy for the user.

Pay to view webcasts of you performing.

Pay for you to perform a track/s of the users choice live via webcast.

Donate button on your website, with details about how filesharing has hurt you.

In all cases money coming direct to you and not being cut with a middleman, except in cases where you have prior arrangements, so a most likely a bigger slice of the pie that your music generates.
And I'm not one of these people that thinks the record industry should take a running jump, I understand it's given tremendous benefits to artists in many cases.

The record industry should be working hard to make all the above and more easy to access for its artists, and it has been slow, negligent even like an enraged child smashing everything in sight in a seriously futile effort to regain the same level of control as they had in the 1950/60s, before looking to see if it could do something new with whats going on.

In all seriousness, one or two of these things might have been possible pre-digital, but not at all with the same reach and impact as you could do so, with relative ease, today.
I'd actually argue you have lost a strong but centralized method of distribution to history, but you have gained a number of decentralized methods of revenue generation in return. Many of them building a much more personal relationship between you and your fans which I think, unarguably, would mean higher sales and a much more loyal fanbase.

[chelsea]

Chelsea, I'm quite happy for the debate to continue and I realise that you are enjoying it as much as we are but could you at least let us know if you are in the EU or give us some context to work with. Perhaps an example of another artist who has similar problems to the ones you feel you have, anything would be good.
Comparing yourself to a factory, farm or tree is fair enough and I agree that it would be yours ad ifinitum, however the produce from such would not be yours forever, indeed it would be sold for a one off payment as it is a physical product. In a digital sense your argument does not work, as I can copy the material without depriving you of the original, which I can't do with apples. This is why copyright exists in the first place but to say that if you write a global superhit you and your decendants should continue to profit from it forever is plain daft, indeed it would be the same as me delivering a cargo in my lorry and expecting to be paid for doing so for the rest of my life. I do appreciate that artists don't produce a song a day and it takes a lot of effort and creative thought to produce a good song, but should that be seen as any more worthy than a doctor saving lives in casualty 12 hours a day for twenty years, I don't think so.

Hi,

I mentioned that i'm currently living in ireland a couple of posts ago. I've also made the point about why making a digital copy and distribiting it for free to the world when i 'm trying to charge for the same product is stealing from me. It devalues what i'm selling to zero because that is generally what the pirate will charge you for it. I can't compete with free. Therefore i have being deprived of the abitlity to make an income from what i'm trying to sell. Do you understand this?

I've also mentioned already that i don't think copyright should last ad infitium but as the law currently states for the life of the creater + 75 years.

This is an interesting debate but do please read over what i've said already as repeatition isn't that much fun

[chelsea]

And Yes, I'm afraid you did mess up the quotes again

We shall see & history will judge - I think you will have to change your practices and expectations and ultimately it will be governments that give up the fight for the simple reason that they don't know the Nottingham Forest as well as Robin Hood does.

If you let me know the name of one of your albums I will check it out and if I like it I will paypal you a donation...

Yeah i just can't seem to get the hang of this particular set up for quotes, dang and blast!!

Actually while my question was purely about wheather the likes of me should try to carry on making music as a full time/part time/semi pro endeveer i did start to think about the goverment's (not just uk but worldwide) role in all this. And i think they are going to continue backing the entermainent's industry fight againsit pirates. And its for a very simple reason: Money. The entermainent industry provides reveune in the form of taxs and employment. And it is also culturely importent for a countrys image. For example the uk would be considered a home of great music over the last forty years.

So what does piracy provide then? I can't see any benefit to a goverment to fall in line with the pirates. There's simply nothing in it for them or there countries is there. Which is where i think the fight is going to be lost for the pirates. It doesn't create anything, it just takes.

Thank you for the offer of a paypal donation if you end up liking my works. I'd prefer to stay annoyomus however. Do you make paypal donations to every artist whoose work you like? To me it sounds a little condascending to be honsent which i'm sure isn't the intention. I know i would just rather you pay the price i set - if you don't argee with the value i set then don't buy it. The flipside of that of course is that you don't get to have it anyway.

[chelsea]

Hi Chelsea,



As for copyright length, as I understand it, we haven't reached a final consensus, and the 5 year figure is a placeholder inherited from our Swedish brethren.

Thats where i was getting the impression ye were tied in the the pirate bay in sweden. What is your relationship with them then?

[NDR008]

No official affiliation, just independent groups inspired by the same philosophy and goal.
For the record Pirate Party Sweden is not related with Pirate Bay other than both believe in p2p and sharing information. And for the same reasons we gave - why you cannot ban parts of the net and search engines on ethical grounds even if it is a way of illegal sharing occuring. It is like saying, if we found out that say in Coventry 95% of rapes occur at night. We just won't let anyone go out at night to ensure no rape occurs..

Also for the person mentioned about a doctor who saves lives. He also spends about 6years of his life studying and building up student loans and a late start on saving money up for property and what not - in order to acquire a living.

Everyone makes their choices on how they think they want to make their money. Musicians are not special - I understand there more volatile nature industry. However similarly - if a dentist or heart surgen lost his steady hand - his career is over. So maybe not that much more volatile either.

The advant of ECUs and EFi in cars made many old school mechanics loose their jobs, because you could not just tune 'a carburetter' with a laptop. Tough - technology advanced, some businesses fell. New ones came.

[EdmundRW]

Thank you for the offer of a paypal donation if you end up liking my works. I'd prefer to stay annoyomus however. Do you make paypal donations to every artist whoose work you like? To me it sounds a little condascending to be honsent which i'm sure isn't the intention. I know i would just rather you pay the price i set - if you don't argee with the value i set then don't buy it. The flipside of that of course is that you don't get to have it anyway.

You nailed the quotes that time!

I do support as many content creators as I can through paypal donations, merch or actually buying the products. I see spending money on something as voting with my £ for it's existence so I think funding what touches you is very important indeed. I'm just advocating a different way of doing it. It may result in reduced revenues for some individuals but because I'm spreading my resources based on much more informed decisions of what is good - there are many creators that get a lot more than they would have otherwise.
Just look at webcomics - the medium of the strip comic was industrialised to the point that there's only about a dozen or so people making money from it. With the advent of the web, even though everything they do is free to read there are many more people able to make a living off their work (many of which I 'support'. I would say, based on no empirical evidence, that the time, effort & resources to produce a daily quality strip comic is/can be at least equivalent to producing an album once a year.
This system may well not work en masse as not everyone is as serious about their art but it is how I 'live with myself'

[chelsea]

No official affiliation, just independent groups inspired by the same philosophy and goal.
For the record Pirate Party Sweden is not related with Pirate Bay other than both believe in p2p and sharing information. And for the same reasons we gave - why you cannot ban parts of the net and search engines on ethical grounds even if it is a way of illegal sharing occuring. It is like saying, if we found out that say in Coventry 95% of rapes occur at night. We just won't let anyone go out at night to ensure no rape occurs..

Also for the person mentioned about a doctor who saves lives. He also spends about 6years of his life studying and building up student loans and a late start on saving money up for property and what not - in order to acquire a living.

Everyone makes their choices on how they think they want to make their money. Musicians are not special - I understand there more volatile nature industry. However similarly - if a dentist or heart surgen lost his steady hand - his career is over. So maybe not that much more volatile either.

The advant of ECUs and EFi in cars made many old school mechanics loose their jobs, because you could not just tune 'a carburetter' with a laptop. Tough - technology advanced, some businesses fell. New ones came.

Sorry, don't understand why its unethicial to ban parts of the net or search engines that pirate material. What is ethically right about stealing from people? Don't get that to be honsent.

Interesting about technological advances making industires obsolute. Music (and entermainent/creative industries as a whole) haven't been made obsolute other wise there would be no more demand for them. Piracy (a problem before the internet) has been made easier but piracy is not sustainable. The choice has become do what the creative industires to carry on or not and the answer would seem to be yes. The big companies have been slow to start their response but they seem to be now and they have the backing of goverment for the reasons i gave in another post. Change is constant and i'm starting to think that the next change will be the end of widespread piracy. Of course this isn't a load of use to me right at this very moment - i have an album coming out at the end of october. I can predict going by the sales pattern of another album i put out in march this year under the same name how the sales pattern is going to. Lot of sales in first 2 - 3 weeks, big drop off coinciding with how many places it becomes avaible as a bit torrent - however traffic on my website wont reflect this drop off - there still be consistenet numbers of people leaving message's on my guestbook saying they just got the album/ love it etc. Of course now i will have a little note on their saying how much illleagal downloading my albums doesn't help with the possibility of me creating anymore. Be interesting to see if that generate's any response. Ah well.

Now as far as i'm understanding youv(the pirate party you that is) are against illeagal download, you just want to change copyright law. What advantages to goverment and the large compaines that lobby them do you present with your proposal's? What is the carrot you can dangle essentially?

[EdmundRW]

Interesting about technological advances making industires obsolute. Music (and entermainent/creative industries as a whole) haven't been made obsolute other wise there would be no more demand for them. Piracy (a problem before the internet) has been made easier but piracy is not sustainable. The choice has become do what the creative industires to carry on or not and the answer would seem to be yes.

You're confusing Music (and entertainment/creative) industries with Music, entertainment and creativity. Such things were around before there was an industry and they will survive long after industry. The industry arose to facilitate the use of technology to allow creativity to spread. Now the industries (in general) are tending towards blocking the use of technology to allow creativity to spread.

[chelsea]

In all cases money coming direct to you and not being cut with a middleman, except in cases where you have prior arrangements, so a most likely a bigger slice of the pie that your music generates.
And I'm not one of these people that thinks the record industry should take a running jump, I understand it's given tremendous benefits to artists in many cases.

The record industry should be working hard to make all the above and more easy to access for its artists, and it has been slow, negligent even like an enraged child smashing everything in sight in a seriously futile effort to regain the same level of control as they had in the 1950/60s, before looking to see if it could do something new with whats going on.

In all seriousness, one or two of these things might have been possible pre-digital, but not at all with the same reach and impact as you could do so, with relative ease, today.
I'd actually argue you have lost a strong but centralized method of distribution to history, but you have gained a number of decentralized methods of revenue generation in return. Many of them building a much more personal relationship between you and your fans which I think, unarguably, would mean higher sales and a much more loyal fanbase.

Hi,

Most of those things would be possible pre-digital actually. But thats not the point really. The debate isn't about weather the internet or technology etc is good or bad. Technology is just technology. The record industry that you talk about and the one i've expericed are two very different things it would seem. And to talk about record companies as being a good or bad thing is a bit of a smokescreen. If someone thinks that it is morally wrong example for someone to have an 80/20 with their record label why is taking that product and not paying for it (in effect creating a 0/0 split) better for the artist. For all this talk about record co's at least they do give something to the artist unlike the pirate!!

Anyways let say for arguements sake i do all of the things on your list tomorrow (i actually a lot of them already as it is) how will you find out about it? Word of mouth? This is where the middle man for me at least is key. In my case they promote, advertise and generally make sure the details of my release's go to where people who might be interested in them can see them there. Do this myself you say? I already work a part time job as well as having a family and making music - there are only so many hours in the day Without my middleman i would have no pie to be looing at slice's of!! Essentially your telling me i should be my own record label - not possible - but i'll still be pirated just the same at the end of the day, not much of an incentive there is there.

So back to where this all started then, my oringal question. As a musician should i continue to create new music? And if i'm thinking that how many of my peers are thinking that? My peers bieng people that make non mainstream commerical niche music for want of a better descripation. Will the legacy of easy piracy be tougher copyright laws and no musicans left except for pop and talent show winners?