[hide=Al Baker on file sharing]Dearest Dolies, Late this morning I saw, through my twitter feed, Mr. Frank Turner post a link to an article from the Daily Mash (the poor man's Onion), satirising the arguments of pro-file sharers as "File Share Crackdown 'Breaches Fundamental Right To Steal'" (see the article here...) For those of you not quite in the loop, this strand of the long running debate began a few days ago when renowned evildoer Peter Mandelson released a statement describing a Government proposal to 'crack down' on illegal file-sharing by cutting off repeat offenders from their internet service. This, coupled with the recent fining and imprisonment of the Pirate Bay founders has brought the debate to something of a head, and I'd like to put my thoughts in the ring while most people are still calm enough to listen. There is no question that, if you download for free an LP (for the sake of argument, let's say it is Elvis Costello's Armed Forces) which you did not own on another format, you have broken the law (there is some question, apparently, about whether you have broken the law if you already owned Armed Forces on Vinyl, for instance). But we all know that the law isn't always right - and more to the point we all know that theft isn't always morally wrong. So no sensible person will argue "This is illegal" or "This is theft", therefore it is wrong. In order to determine the rightness or wrongness of illegal file-sharing, music piracy or whatever you want to call it, we'll have to think a bit harder than that. Firstly, I need to spill a couple of not-so-secret industry secrets. Selling records is just about the least profitable part of making music. The amount of money it costs to record, press and promote a record to put on general release is staggering, and the money is very rarely made back (a very large number of artists finish their fifteen minutes of fame in debt to their record labels for this reason). If you sign up to a record label, which is pretty much a necessity if you want to get your music well promoted and distributed, the chances that a musician will see any of the money from the sales of that record are pretty slim, and for the lucky few that do make some money back, or don't wind up in debt to their label, the sales still aren't generally enough to live on (artists only ever get a variable percentage - I haven't the exact figure to hand, but roughly 2.5% of what you pay for a CD goes to the people who wrote the music). The way musicians make most of their money (I'll hopefully include myself in that number before too long) is through royalties and live performance. Whereas your averagely successful rock and/or roller might see 2.5% from a sale of a CD (25p from a £10 product), they're likely to see roughly 25% of the face value of a ticket to see them in concert. It's fairly common knowledge now that the number and attendances at live performances have gone up since file-sharing became more widespread, and I think there is a very easy explanation for this. If you are forced to shell out some £10-£20 in order to hear a new artist, you're unlikely to do it. If you can do it for free, you'll listen to as much as you can, and if you like it you'll pay to see it done live. And, the more live shows a musician does, the more royalties the songwriter gets (for instance, I'll get about £5 in royalties when I play half an hour down my local pub, if I get played on Radio 1, it's about £20 per minute, it all depends on the audience size and various other boring things that Chris tried to explain to me once). In terms of hard, money grubbing, selfish, capitalist scumbag thinking, I firmly believe that file-sharing has been a good thing for musicians in of themselves. Besides which, I think that people still will buy people's physical format music if they like it (I've done exactly that, tried-then-buyed, with plenty of artists, too numerous to mention). And it strikes me as a very unpleasant, almost blackmailing habit, when musicians insist that people have to shell out pretty substantial sums before they're allowed to hear whether they like what's on offer or not. Is it harmless? Absolutely not. As I said in the opening paragraph, by far the easiest way to get your music heard is to sign on to a label. Labels will judge your performance on record sales, and small labels can't afford to take the sort of blow that file-sharing often deals out. So I would urge you, as I have urged people in the past to think on this, to remember that the artist you like will only be allowed to continue working with a label if that label makes a profit - and that it is through these small labels that artists often get their first 'break'. The music world needs independant labels, and we need to be responsible enough to make sure they don't go broke - but I have enough faith in people to know that when we can afford to help people out, we will. If that's not possible, I personally would always rather someone heard my music for free than that they didn't hear it at all. In the words of Stan Marsh "If we're real musicians, then we should just play and be stoked that so many people are listening". Yeah it's a job, and we need to make a living, but it's our art first and foremost. One final main point - I think that people who bang on too much about the wrongness of illegal file sharing of music and videos, in defense of the creators (that's you and me, Frank), are, to be honest, pissing in the wind. We would, in my opinion, be serving ourselves far better if instead of making time-honoured arguments equivalent to the "home taping is killing music" campaign of the 80s (it didn't, in case you hadn't noticed), we looked to the future. The music business is going to change enormously in the very near future, and with any luck it'll mean the end of EMI, Vigin and Colombia. The best way that we can ensure that we get paid fairly for the work we do is to organise ourselves and lobby for legislated internet-generated royalty guarantees. Spotify, MySpace, YouTube, and similar services are where people go to listen to music now and if we don't act soon to ensure that we get our fair share of the revenue generated from such services, then all the decisions will be made without us, by the same people in the industry who are ripping us off now, while we're still bickering over Pirate Bay. I think that's all for now, if anyone has any comments, corrections or questions I'd be pleased to hear them - and there's a very good podcast from Stephen Fry that anyone interested in the issue should hear (just go to his website and subscribe from there). Thanks for your time, Al x[/hide]