I really do think we need to debunk the Portugaul claims. A separate, more
thorough, debunking would be an excellent resource but mentioning the economic
situation in Portugaul even if only in passing pulls the rug out from under
more of their FUD. In fact I think we would have refuted just about the entire
article. :-)
- Rob.
Quoting Tim Cowlishaw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
Thanks Rufus!
I have amended the letter and posted the new version on the wiki here:
http://www.freeculture.org.uk/guardianLetter
any changes welcome, otherwise, let's all start adding our signatures!
tim
On 4/7/06, Rufus Pollock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Well done Tim. I think this really excellent. A few comments inserted
below. But I think this is pretty good to go -- and the sooner the better.
Regards,
Rufus
Tim Cowlishaw wrote:
> Ok... here's a proposed first draft of the letter (with comments),
>
> Sir, /* Is this the correct way to start a letter to a newspaper?
not PC? */
Dear Sir or Madam,
> We /*plural or singular? who's putting their name to this? */ were
Go with we. You can then put a list of signatories at the bottom
> saddend to see the Guardian's completely uncritical repetition of the
typo: saddened -> saddened
> BPIs claim to have sustained losses of £414m due to internet
> file-sharing over the course of the last year (Music industry counts
> the cost of online piracy, Tuesday April 4, 2006). Since your article
> essentially constituted a paraphrase of the BPI press release, we
> would like to place some of their claims in perspective. /* Is the
> tone of this first paragraph to accusatory? I personally don't have
> any beef with the guardian, so it might be a little unfair to slag
> them off too much.... */
Could have something like: 'While on previous occassions the Guardian
has provided commendably balanced reportage of these issues on this
occassion the article amounted to little more than a paraphrase of the
BPI's press release and we would therefore like to put some of their
claims in perspective.
>
> The BPI claim that their estimate of £414m has increased largely
> because "those downloading music illegally are the individuals
> expected to spend the most on music", yet this assertion directly
> contradicts research carried out by music research firm 'The Leading
> Question' (and reported by yourselves - "Online file sharers 'buy more
> music' - July 27, 2005") that "music fans who illegally share tracks
> over the internet also spend four and a half times as much on digital
> music as those who do not". On what basis do the BPI expect otherwise?
Could add: 'This along with a growing body of other research demonstrate
that online file-sharing is doing little to harm the music industry and
may even be helping it. Any informed reader should therefore be highly
sceptical of the BPI's wildly inflated claims which have no basis given
the available evidence.
> Peter Jamieson, the BPI chairman, asserts "when people share music
> files illegally, they are stealing the future of British musicians and
> the people who invest in them.". We would like to remind Mr Jamieson
> that despite the best efforts of the BPIs member companies, the future
> of music (and the livelihood of musicians) is in no way dependant on
> the existance of a 'music industry' in it's current form. In fact, as
I would insert a paragraph break here so next para starts: 'In fact, ...'
> an increasing number of musicians and music fans alike are realising
> that the biggest threat to the future of music today is the current
> agression of middlemen such as the BPI's members, who are willing to
typo: agression -> aggression
> destroy the public domain (upon which all artistic expression relys)
suggest: destroy -> damage
> through extension to copyright terms, lock musicians into contracts
> that are more akin to slavery than patronage, and attempt to place
> limits on the possibilities that new technology offers for
> self-expression, all in the name of perpetuating a business model
> which is outmoded, and based on providing a service which is proving
> to be increasingly unnecessary.
>
> Mr Jamieson and his colleagues are now faced with a choice. They can
> adapt, and find new ways of providing services that are valued by both
> musicians and consumers, or they can do nothing and gradually become
> more unnecessary and irrelevant. The world will not wait for them.
suggest: do nothing and watch themselves becomes increasingly
unnecessary and irrelevant.
_______________________________________________
fc-uk-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/fc-uk-discuss
_______________________________________________
fc-uk-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/fc-uk-discuss
