ZeroPaid.com » bpi

UK MP: Digital Economy Act Won’t Be Fixed Until 2013

Jared Moya — Mon, 28 Mar 2011 17:37:30 +0000

Eric Joyce, Labor MP for Falkirk, says that many arguments used to pass the legislation were "nonsense," and that it'll only be "through experience gained through the application of the Act" that "significant amendments" will be crafted to fix its flaws.

More bad news about the UK's controversial Digital Economy Act is piling up these days. Last week a spokesman for the Department of Culture, Media and Sport said that thanks to a number of unforeseen administrative and regulatory obstacles the law wouldn't be implemented until spring 2012 at the earliest. Meanwhile the judicial review of the DEA concluded today in which the country's High Court will determine whether or not a number of the Act's provisions violate domestic or EU law. Now Eric Joyce, Labor MP for Falkirk and chair of the Digital Economy All Party Parliamentary Group, says in an interview with PCPro that it'll take several years to fix Act. "I think in a year or two it will be useable, but I think it will be through experience gained through the application of the Act," he says. Joyce says that a number of the arguments used to pass the legislation were "nonsense," and that Business Secretary Lord Mandelson, head of the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS) and whose job it was to implement the recommendations for reducing file-sharing as outlined in the Digital Britain report, "listened to some arguments, made a decision, went away and let the rest of us take the ball and go with it." He says that since everyone agreed with the Act there was no real scrutiny for flaws, and that it won't be until actual "practice" and "experience" with the Act that people will see "significant amendments" to fix it. Joyce does, however make a point to say that he thinks the argument made by rights holders that one illegal download equals a lost sale is a "ludicrous." Even more ludicrous, though not mentioned by Joyce, is the fact that music industry revenue is actually up since 2007, making the need for the DEA seem all the more elusive. On top of that, last December the British Phonographic Industry (BPI) released a report that said 58% of file-sharers use Google to find free music. It also said that the use of cyberlockers and unauthorized MP3 pay sites - mechanisms beyond the scope of the DEA - are “rising alarmingly.” Stay tuned. jared@zeropaid.com

IFPI: 31% Decline in Global Music Sales

Jared Moya — Fri, 21 Jan 2011 18:16:31 +0000

Says sharp decline in physical sales hasn't been offset by meager rise in digital sales, and says there is "growing worldwide momentum" for govt's to get involved to stop P2P. The only problem is that digital sales will never offset physical sales as music fans now have the option to buy a single track for 99 cents versus the previous business model that required a $19 album purchase.

The International Federation of the Phonographic Industry has released its annual music industry report, and the results are about as surprising as what it says needs to be done to fix them. Like all other music industry interest groups the IFPI suffers from the delusion that digital music is like physical music, and that two would be equal if "wasn't for them meddlin' kids" - aka illegal file-sharers. It says that in 2010 CD sales continued their sharp decline while digital music sales rose by a mere 6%, but what it doesn't say is that people no longer want to own clunky, outdated CDs. Why would u want to lug around a bulky portable CD player with a capacity of 17 songs when you could load up an iPod the size of a matchbook cover with 500 or more? Digital music sales will never match the previous levels of physical music sales because the album is also now unbundled. Music fans don't have to buy an entire album to hear the one or two good songs they heard on the radio. Now they can get the greatest hit for as little as 99 cents. Sadly for the IFPI, but even sadder for the public at large, is that it thinks it can magically make digital music sales surge enough to give it the levels of overall it was accustomed to prior to the advent of P2P. In the report Frances Moore, IFPI's Chief executive, speaks of "encouraging signs" that the "tide of government opinion is turning." She says the "music industry is still hemorrhaging revenue as a result of digital piracy," and cites a study that predicts "million of jobs will disappear" from the European creative industries by 2015 if piracy isn't stopped. The problem with that study and its claims of millions (1.2mln) of jobs lost is that it includes a range of sectors that have absolutely nothing to do with digital piracy It includes things like art fairs, advertisers, and anybody involved in the sale of TVs, DVDs, radios, gaming consoles, music instruments, photocopiers, and cameras. ISP-level filtering and "three-strikes" legislation won't protect the jobs of guys at your local Best Buy. Moore doesn't care about the facts, and insists the music industry needs "adequate legal tools" to fight illegal file-sharing. "Action to stop digital music piracy is gaining momentum worldwide, with implementation by ISPs of warnings and deterrent sanctions taking effect in three countries in 2010 and governments in other countries expected to implement measures in 2011," she says, pointing to South Korea, France, and Ireland as examples of what's in store. The problem with all of her theory is that it isn't true. There is no "worldwide momentum." South Korea only passed "three-strikes" legislation after the US hinged a supposed "free trade" agreement on its passage. It's been nearly two years and not only has the US still not upheld its end of the bargain by approving that free trade agreement, but as of last October only 31 people have had their Internet accounts suspended. There are an estimated 48.7 million Internet users in South Korea. If this example wasn't foolish enough, Moore cites France and Ireland. In France only 4% of those who have received warnings for illegal file-sharing have quit while more than half say they will be “more vigilant then before." In fact, illegal file-sharing has reportedly become a “national sport” in France as the country’s youth rebel against copyright legislation they rightly consider among the most repressive in the world. With Ireland the example is even more dubious. Only one ISP warns and suspends (12mos) Internet users for illegal file-sharing. Eircom's "voluntary partnership" with the Irish Recorded Music Association (IRMA) was the result of an out of court settlement over outrageous accusations that it was responsible for any copyright infringement carried out by its customers. Rather than fight back it capitulated. Other Irish ISPs had the guts to fight back, and the country's High Court ruled in their favor. This is hardly a portrait of "worldwide momentum." The IFPI also conveniently leaves out other facts like a UK study purporting a decline in P2P among youth in favor of free streaming, another source of revenue decline. Moreover, the only study I really pay attention to is the one from last September which found that since the advent of digital music the income of the average musician has increased by some 66%! There's a big difference between record labels and musicians, and the latter is the only one I'm concerned about. Stay tuned. jared@zeropaid.com

BPI Blames P2P for Sales Decline, Ignores Streaming, Singles Growth

Jared Moya — Tue, 11 Jan 2011 08:09:44 +0000

Although the British Phonographic Industry (BPI) has repeatedly claimed a rise in total music industry revenues over the last several years, says that rising digital music sales aren't making up for lost physical CD sales even though music fans are no longer forced to buy an entire $20 physical album, just the few tracks they want tracks for 99 cents apiece.

The British Phonographic Industry (BPI) still suffers from the same delusions as its cousin from across the pond - the RIAA - in the belief that illegal downloading is solely to blame for the continued decline in CD sales. Last week I mentioned how digital music now accounts for 46% of all music purchases in the US, up from 32% in 2008, as well as the RIAA's admission of a "rapidly changing marketplace." It said the sales figures "only reveal part of the story," and mentioned the "enormous growth in online streaming music and access models" as an indication "about the direction in which the music market is headed." It was an oddly frank assessment from the RIAA, but it still seemed to claim that P2P was also to blame for the decline in sales. The BPI delivered the same sort of news, that digital music sales were up, physical sales were down, and the difference between the two in favor of the latter was due to "still-increasing levels of illegal downloading." It said the market remains "heavily distorted" by illegal file-sharing, and that "meaningful action to tackle illegal downloading remains absolutely critical if we are to stabilize British music sales, let alone return to growth." It's an odd statement to make considering this past August it claimed total recording music industry revenues for 2009 were up 2.3% from 2008 to £1.12 billion ($1.8b USD). This is on top of last year’s declaration by Will Page, Chief Economist for PRS for Music, a UK-based royalty collecting group, that total music industry industry revenues are up 4.7% since 2007. “UK record companies have responded to tough market conditions by innovating in the digital world and developing new revenue streams from recorded music, beyond their traditional base of CD sales and the encouraging growth in digital a la carte, subscription and streaming services,” said BPI Chief Executive Geoff Taylor at the time. If that's true then why does the BPI claim it is unable to "stabilize" or "grow" music sales? Part of the problem is that the BPI, and the RIAA for that matter, suffer from the same delusion that digital sales should either match or exceed physical CD sales. It's unlikely to ever happen. In the past most music fans had the choice of either buying the entire physical album or do without. It was practically impossible to cherry pick single songs. Apple's iTunes changed all that. Now music fans can fork over as little as 99 cents for their favorite song, down from the $19.99 they usually had to fork over in the past. Additionally, as the RIAA pointed out, in 2010 the music market “saw enormous growth” in online streaming music services like Vevo and Pandora where music fans don’t make any music purchases at all. Sure artists and labels get royalty payments, but it's nowhere near the profits on music purchases. A UK survey from last year even found that streaming music has already caused a majority of young adults (54%) to quit illegally downloading music altogether. Instead of blaming P2P and even search engines like Google for the decline in music sales the BPI needs to come to terms with a "rapidly changing marketplace." Stay tuned. jared@zeropaid.com

BPI Study: 58% of Illegal Downloaders Use Google to Find Free Music

Jared Moya — Thu, 16 Dec 2010 21:30:35 +0000

The British Phonographic Industry (BPI) has released a new report outlining the current state of legal and digital music in the UK, and its findings detail the enormous obstacles it faces in trying to fight the problem of illegal file-sharing. Though the UK boasts some 67 legal music services it says that the overall level of illegal downloading is on the rise. "Illegal downloading continues to rise in the UK," says BPI Chief Executive, Geoff Taylor. "It is a parasite that threatens to deprive a generation of talented young people of their chance to make a career in music, and is holding back investment in the fledgling digital entertainment sector." However, standard P2P applications and services aren't the problem, their level of usage has remained steady, its the use of cyberlockers and unauthorized MP3 pay sites that is "rising alarmingly." Even more troubling for the BPI is that a majority of illegal downloaders use search engine giant Google to find free music. In fact, according to consumer research from Harris Interactive, 58% of them do. "While in some cases there is a small level of technological know-how necessary to acquire music illegally from the internet, in most instances it is worryingly straightforward and can be as simple as typing the name of the track or artist into a search engine," reads the report. It observes that methods to illegally acquire copyrighted material has "evolved" and "diversified" over the years, and that unsurprisingly search engines have become another source like any other. Last month the BPI proved the point by doing test searches for the UK’s top 20 singles or albums, followed by the query “mp3" over the course of a week and found that "on average 17 of the first 20 Google results for singles and 14 of 20 search results for albums were links to known illegal sites." The report notes that Google even went the extra mile by in many cases auto-completing the search query with phrases like "torrent," and thereby actively directing users towards free illegal downloads. To be fair, Google did declare recently that it plants to begin "Making Copyright Work Better Online” in order to “better address” the “bad apples who use the Internet to infringe copyright,” and that it would specifically "prevent terms that are closely associated with piracy from appearing in auto-complete." What the BPI admits, yet simultaneously fails to acknowledge, is that illegal downloading will always "evolve" and "diversify." Even the simplest form of illegal downloading, via email attachments, will continue unabated. What the BPI ought to do is focus less on illegal downloading and more on what music fans want. They want music when and where they want, and all at a fair price. When it comes to a fair price the BPI ought to also consider the recent proposal made by Rob Dickens, former head of Warner Music in the UK. Dickens suggested a a “micro-economy” in which album prices are “radically reduced," and the resulting increase in sales volume more than making up for the drop in prices. Stay tuned. jared@zeropaid.com Digital Music Nation 2010

Open Rights Group to BPI: Is an IP Address “Conclusive Evidence?”

Jared Moya — Wed, 10 Nov 2010 08:47:59 +0000

Jim Killock, Executive Director of the Open Rights Group (ORG), a UK digital rights advocacy group, has asked Geoff Taylor, Chief Executive of the British Phonographic Industry (BPI), to clarify his group's claim that UK courts have accepted an IP address as "conclusive evidence" that identifying a person responsible for copyright infringement.

Copyright holders have always tried to maintain that an IP address is an accurate means of identifying who's responsible for specific instances of illegal file-sharing, however, as we all know, nothing could be further from the truth. More amazingly, is the claim by the British Phonographic Industry (BPI) that an IP address has been accepted by UK courts as "conclusive evidence" that a person has committed copyright infringement. This past September, Jim Killock, Executive Director of the Open Rights Group (ORG), a UK digital rights advocacy group, wrote a letter to Geoff Taylor, Chief Executive of the BPI, asking him to clarify this inaccuracy. "We have not as yet received a reply from the BPI," he says, but it's obvious why he hasn't received one. The BPI knows the claim is false. From the letter:

Dear Geoff, I am writing urgently to clarify widely circulating information about the evidence that is collected on behalf of the BPI relating to possible copyright infringement. Your website states that your evidence is
“of an extremely high standard. It is the same quality of evidence that was provided in more than one hundred cases to the High Court in litigation against end users and which was accepted by the court in each case. Most of these cases resulted in settlements, and all of those on which judgment was given found in the BPI's favour.[i]
The implication given is that IP evidence is “accepted” courts as evidence of guilt. With regard to the recent Digital Economy Act legislation, you wrote to BIS to say that:
“BPI’s evidence has never been challenged in any UK court, including the High Court proceedings during the ‘hubcap’ litigation”[ii]
We would like you to clarify this by answering the following question:
Has any UK court ever treated an IP address as being sufficient by itself to identify a defendant as a copyright infringer in a contested copyright infringement claim decided after a trial of an action?
A simple “yes” or “no” would be most helpful. If the answer is yes, then references to the cases would be very helpful. As your organization works alongside ISPs and citizen groups including ORG around the Initial Obligation Code, we think clarifying this point would aid politicians and policy makers alike. Thank you, Jim Killock Executive Director, Open Rights Group

The BPI makes the odd argument that courts have accepted IP addresses as evidence of infringement while at the same time admitting that many have opted to settle out of court rather than seek a true judgment on the merits of the evidence at trial. It can't be both. It's either "conclusive evidence" that can stand on its own or it's a piece of evidence that's submitted alongside others to prove its case. It may be a matter of semantics for some, but it's a very real distinction, especially when people are receiving letters of infringement en masse from overzealous copyright holder groups. Stay tuned. jared@zeropaid.com

BPI: UK Music Revenues Up 2.3%, But P2P Still a Problem

Jared Moya — Mon, 09 Aug 2010 17:53:32 +0000

British Phonographic Industry (BPI) lauds record labels for "innovating in the digital world and developing new revenue streams," boasting increased overall revenues, but insists that illegal file-sharing is still a problem that must be "tackled." Leave it to the British Phonographic Industry (BPI) to congratulate record labels for creating innovative new ways to increase overall revenue while simultaneously arguing that the govt needs to do more to help it survive. According to the BPI, total recording music industry revenues for 2009 were £1.12 billion ($1.8b USD), a 2.3% increase from 2008. This is on top of last year's declaration by Will Page, Chief Economist for PRS for Music, a UK-based royalty collecting group, that total music industry industry revenues are up 4.7% since 2007. “UK record companies have responded to tough market conditions by innovating in the digital world and developing new revenue streams from recorded music, beyond their traditional base of CD sales and the encouraging growth in digital a la carte, subscription and streaming services," said BPI Chief Executive Geoff Taylor." What the figures show is what everybody but record labels already realize: the music business is rapidly evolving. Page noted that the music industry saw dramatic growth in licensing, advertising, and sponsorship deals in 2008. The BPI observed the same happen in 2009 as revenue from film, TV, advertising, and games sync licensing income rose 19.6% to £25.2m ($40m USD). The BPI also noted that so-called "secondary revenues" - income generated outside of CD sales and digital music services - have grown for the third year in a row, up 6.6% to £193.5m ($308m USD) since 2008. Secondary revenues now account for 20.8% of total music industry revenues. But, as usual, the BPI insists that illegal file-sharing is a problem that must urgently be addressed, and that if it isn't the music industry won't be able to survive. “The growth in labels’ secondary income in 2009, combined with the strong increases in digital revenue already announced, illustrates the outstanding potential of British recorded music if illegal file-sharing can be tackled,” adds Taylor. So in other words, the BPI thinks it could be doing so much better if only the govt did a better job of punishing UK file-sharers in order to convince them to become better paying customers. It's a tale of a better business model via threat of force. With the UK govt already having passed the Digital Economy Act, thereby approving "three-strikes," website filtering, and a virtual ban on public Wi-Fi to "tackle" illegal file-sharing, it's hard to reconcile the fact that the public is being asked to sacrifice so much in the way of Internet freedom while the music industry already boasts increasing revenue, the very thing the measures are intended to ensure. It's all eerily reminiscent of the BPI's myth of 7 million UK file-sharers, a figure that turned out to be as little as 3.9 million, a mere 11% of the total online population in the UK. The real question is whether a problem that involves a tiny minority of overall Internet users be solved on the backs of the rest of society, especially if the intended beneficiary is already boasting that it has been "innovating" and "developing new revenue streams" that have helped it to so successfully increase revenue. Stay tuned. jared@zeropaid.com

IFPI Demands Google Remove Pirate Bay Links

Jared Moya — Fri, 25 Jun 2010 18:19:29 +0000

Sends the search engine giant a DMCA complaint asking that it quit "providing search results directly linking to the website for the illegal file-sharing service" that is the Swedish BitTorrent tracker site The Pirate Bay.

Following the British Phonographic Industry's (BPI) recent surprising attempt to have search engine giant Google remove links to sites that illegally host copyrighted material, the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry (IFPI) is following suit with a DMCA complaint of its own, asking that it remove links to Swedish BitTorrent tracker site The Pirate Bay. "We are writing to you in relation Google's web search facility which is currently providing search results directly linking to the website for the illegal file-sharing service, The Pirate Bay," it says. The IFPI has long been trying to shut down The Pirate Bay. Last April it convinced a Swedish Court that the site's founders were guilty of copyright infringement, and for years has tried to force ISPs around the globe to prevent their customers from being able to access the site. Targeting Google is a natural progression of the music industry's fight against online music piracy. During The Pirate Bay trial it was pointed out that it, much like Google, doesn't actually host any copyrighted material. Google was miffed at the comparison, but the facts speak for themselves. "As part of IFPI's ongoing global anti-piracy programme we have asked Google to remove search results that link to infringing content made available through The Pirate Bay," said IFPI general counsel Jo Oliver. "The Pirate Bay is one of the world's largest drivers of online copyright infringement. Its operators have been found guilty of criminal charges in Sweden and courts in numerous other countries have ruled its activities are illegal. Online copyright infringement reduces potential revenue to record companies, large and small, that could be used to invest in the discovery, nurture and promotion of artists." The IFPI's DMCA complaint also hints at a possible future lawsuit, clearly spelling out its questioning of Google being defined as a "service provider" as defined by the DMCA. "Our use of a notice in this form, as required by Google, is meant to facilitate Google's removal of search results linking directly to infringing web pages and we neither admit nor accept that Google is a 'service provider' for the purposes of the DMCA or that it is necessary to serve, or that Google is entitled to be served, a notice in compliance with the DMCA," it says. "IFPI itself and on behalf of the IFPI Represented Companies expressly reserves all rights in this regard." It'll be a tough to sell to US judges, especially after its recent victory against claims of copyright infringement by media conglomerate Viacom. The judge in that case, US District Court Judge Louis Stanton, confirmed that YouTube does indeed qualify for protection under the safe harbor provision of the DMCA. With The Pirate Bay no longer even hosting torrent trackers these days it makes the odds of an IFPI victory even more remote. Stay tuned. jared@zeropaid.com

“3-Strikes” Recall? UK Music Sales Up 1.4% in 2009

Jared Moya — Mon, 26 Apr 2010 15:28:33 +0000

British Phonographic Industry says a strong fourth quarter and increased digital income streams offset declining physical sales, contradicting claims that the music industry is in a freefall that required immediate "3-strikes" legislation via the recently passed Digital Economy Act to stabilize.

Sometimes its better to keep good news to yourself, especially if you've just helped drag an entire country through a nasty legislative process that leaves everybody else on the hook for your own mistakes and shortcomings. Such is the case in the UK where the British Phonographic Industry (BPI) has just announced that last year's recorded music sales rose some 1.4% to £928.8m ($1.4m USD). It attributes the rise to a stronger than expected fourth quarter and increased revenue from digital income streams, offsetting a continued decline in physical format sales. The BPI says that digital income revenue rose a startling 47.8% to £188.9m ($292 million USD) and now represents a fifth (20.3%) of overall recorded music revenues, taking into account earnings from online downloads alongside mobile, subscriptions and ad-supported services. Unsurprisingly, physical music sales declined for the sixth year in a row, down 6.1% in 2009. “It’s encouraging to see industry revenues stabilize and even show modest growth in 2009," says Geoff Taylor, BPI Chief Executive, in a press release. "This is testament to continuing investment by UK labels in talented artists despite challenging economic conditions, and the innovation labels have shown in licensing new digital services." That's the thing. Last July, Will Page, the Chief Economist for PRS for Music, a UK-based royalty collecting group for music writers, composers, and publishers, published a study concluding that total music industry revenues were up 4.7% since 2009. How? Because of increasing diversification of revenue streams. It's more than just album sales. The music industry also earns money from things like licensing, advertising, and sponsorship deals. Yet, the good news is still bad news in the topsy turvy music world where up is down and down is up. Taylor laments that digital music sales aren't growing fast enough to compensate for the decline in physical format sales, and blames the problem on illegal P2P. "The pace of growth of new digital services is encouraging, but the size of the market continues to be constrained by competition from illegal downloads," he adds." Is P2P really to blame? The big difference between digital and physical music sales is the ability to "cherry pick" what you want to buy. Instead of buying an entire album, as was the case with physical CDs, consumers can now buy the greatest hit for a measly $1.29 on Apple's iTunes. It's impossible to reconcile the two. Digital music sales will always be far less than physical sales ever were. This is all of no consequence to the BPI who so strenuously pushed for the recently enacted Digital Economy Act, parts of which were at one point taken verbatim from letters it sent to the govt demanding action. The Act, which includes a "three-strikes" regime for file-sharers, a ban on public access Wi-Fi, and website filtering does little to address the root of the problem: an outdated business model that has yet to fully embrace the digital age. With music sales up, even a measly 1.4%, it's hard to reconcile the fact that throughout the Act's legislative ordeal the BPI claimed that without it millions of jobs, and the very survival of the music industry was at stake. So much for that. Worse still, the BPI said earlier this month it was going to take matters into its own hands and begin suing file-sharers until the govt implements the technical measures - i.e. "three-strikes" - promised in the Act if warnings alone fail to "significantly reduce" illegal file-sharing. So even when the music industry gets what it wants it demands more. It seems to me the only solution to it all is to quit buying music from any source other than directly from artists. Stay tuned. jared@zeropaid.com

BPI Plans to Sue UK File-Sharers

Jared Moya — Mon, 19 Apr 2010 15:28:56 +0000

Chief executive Geoff Taylor says that until ISP-level technical measures take effect a year from now as part of the Digital Economy Act it will have to "bring lawsuits at some level."

The recent passage of the controversial Digital Economy Act in the UK has certainly pleased executives in the British Phonographic Industry (BPI), especially considering some of the original amendments were taken verbatim from a letter it wrote asking the govt for specific revisions of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act of 1988. However, its chief executive, Geoff Taylor, says that it plans additional tactics to fight illegal file-sharing until the Act's technical measures take effect. The technical measures - i.e. disconnection and throttling - won't begin until the govt's Office of Communications (Ofcom) has determined that initial efforts have failed to "to “significantly reduce” (by 70%) levels of illegal file-sharing. Warning letter won't begin until Deecember at the earliest, so it would be some time before that determination could be made. In the meantime the BPI says it may begin a lawsuit campaign against people suspected of illegal file-sharing. The Act requires ISPs to maintain a list of infringers and so Taylor says the BPI will simply "ask the ISPs to give us lists of anonymous numbers of subscribers who we have identified the most number of times, and we will then be able to go to court to get the identities and names of addresses of those individuals and eventually bring legal proceedings, so even at the stage of the initial letters being sent there is the possibility that we will follow up with legal proceedings against the most egregious infringers." What constitutes "egregious" is unclear. The BPI last abandoned its RIAA-style "sue em all" campaign back in 2006 after determining it had little effect on illegal P2P and only alienated music fans and the public at large. It now blames the govt not allowing the technical measures to take effect immediately for its decision to return to the courtroom to solve its problems until they do. "Government disagreed with us, regrettably, and decided not to bring the technical measures into effect immediately and has said to us that it expects us to bring legal cases and that it will take that into account when it looks at whether or not to introduce technical measures," says Taylor. "So we may well have to bring lawsuits at some level, and that is apparently expected of us by government, it is not something we really want to do because we believe that technical measures would be a better approach. However we are not going to be given that option initially and so it is something we may have to do on some scale." So it would seem if people in the UK didn't already have enough to worry about with the corporate takeover of the Internet - website filtering, ban on public access Wi-Fi - the BPI will begin suing people until the govt has the power to disconnect them from the Internet. Talk about heavy-handed tactics. Stay tuned. jared@zeropaid.com

Music Industry Cheers UK “3-Strikes,” Hopes it Goes Global

Jared Moya — Sat, 10 Apr 2010 22:48:06 +0000

RIAA, IFPI, and the BPI line up to praise passage of the Digital Economy Bill, which includes Internet disconnection, website filtering, and a virtual ban on public access WI-Fi, hoping that it "creates momentum for the graduated response approach to tackling piracy internationally."

The ink has yet to dry on the recently passed Digital Economy Bill (DEB) in the UK, and already the music industry is lining up to take turns praising the country's MPs for ushering in a new era of online anti-piracy rules and regulations. “We welcome the recognition by the UK government – as with increasing numbers of countries around the world – that ISPs have an important role to play in protecting creators and preserving the Internet as an engine of economic growth and a platform for innovative business models," says RIAA Chairman & CEO Mitch Bainwol. "To be sure, the more this trend goes global, the greater the possibilities are for a thriving music marketplace that better serves the creators of music and their fans." The DEB includes website filtering, a ban on open Wi-Fi, and a “three-strikes” regime that would disconnect accused file-sharers from the Internet. It forces ISPs to change from neutral "dumb pipe" broadband providers to "protectors" of the Internet that root out copyright infringement at every turn. One of the problems is that it invests heavily in the notion that increased scrutiny of Internet users for signs of illegal file-sharing, and then sanctioning them accordingly, will somehow turn them into paying customers. It doesn't address the core issue of the music industry's failure to develop a business model that convinces them to buy on their own. The Internet is instead molded to suit the needs of private businesses. Worse still, as we've already seen in France after passage of its own "3-strikes" bill, P2P users will by in large simply switch to alternative methods of acquiring copyrighted material. In the case of France, 2/3 of former P2P users simply switched to non-P2P alternatives like illegal streaming sites and HTTP-based download services (i.e. Rapidshare), but other options like VPNs, Usenet, etc., still remain. But, a desperate music industry doesn't seem to care, and as usual, is blinded by its own ignorance. "The Act’s measures to reduce illegal downloading will spur on investment in new music and innovation in legal business models," says the British Phonographic Industry's Chief Executive Geoff Taylor. "An internet that rewards taking creative risks will mean more British bands enjoying global success, more choice in how to access music online, and more jobs in our fast-growing creative sector. These measures will not eliminate all piracy, but they will go a long way towards reducing illegal freeloading and will help to build a more sustainable ecosystem for content on the internet." Locking down the Internet, especially by banning public Wi-Fi, is no way to reward an industry for deciding to take creative risks. Every time millions of UK Internet users go online - music fans or not - they'll be monitored for signs of copyright infringement to make sure the record industry isn't losing out on potential profits. Restricting people's freedom is hardly a way to create a "sustainable ecosystem" for selling them music. The BPI wanted ISPs to police the Internet and it finally got its wish. "And we have got the law to recognize that internet service providers, who have benefited so much from creative content on the web, have a joint responsibility to ensure creators' rights are protected," says Tony Wadsworth, Chairman of the BPI. "This is a significant step in the transition of our business to the online world.” Notice how it's still trying to "transition?" It spent a decade practically sitting on its hands until declining profits forced it to act, and how does it respond? By forcing the "transition" on Internet users, and not just music fans by the way. Instead of it adapting to the needs of society, it forced society to adapt to its needs instead, and if the music industry could have its way the DEB would go global. "The move by the UK creates momentum for the graduated response approach to tackling piracy internationally," says International Federation of the Phonographic Industry (IFPI) chairman John Kennedy. "Governments increasingly understand that, in the digital economy, creative industries like music, film, books and games can drive growth and jobs for many years to come if they are provided with the right legal environment and with a modern system of enforcement in which ISPs actively cooperate." "The UK has today joined the ranks of those countries who have taken decisive and well-considered steps to address the issue. We hope this will prompt more focus and urgency for similar measures in other countries where debate is underway," he adds. Well, I can tell you one thing, and that it will NEVER EVER happen in the US. Our country may have its faults, but let it be noted we take free speech and privacy protections very seriously. Too bad the UK and France don't seem to be as enlightened as we are. Oh the irony.