The UK government is planning to promote "attractively packaged content" on the internet, bowing to pressure from copyright owners to prevent online piracy.
Only figures for the music industry are cited in the consultation paper, yet various regulatory and co-regulatory solutions are proposed that will affect all copyright content online.
The paper claims that about 6.5m people in the UK (25% of UK internet users), engaged in illicit P2P file sharing in 2007. This is estimated to "cost" the "music industry" £1bn over the next 5 years, against revenues of about £1bn per annum.
So, where's the problem? The "music industry's" digital music sales increased by 28% in 2007. Sure, declining CD sales resulted in a loss, but that's like saying Ford made a loss because no one wants to by the Model T anymore. It is also conceded that the decline in CD sales wasn't due to piracy alone - supermarket discounting and the shift to digital purchases were chiefly responsible. In other words, the "music industry's" woes are born of consumer dissatisfaction.
Consumers are used to getting content for free online, knowing that providers are making money out of advertising. So it's no surprise that 91% of survey respondents file-share because the content is free. More telling is that 42% say it's because they could find everything they were looking for. In other words, constraining supply by "attractively packaging content" doesn't work, and the music industry needs to get with the programme.
Of course, file sharing isn't actually not free. File-sharers spend time and pay for wireless technology, proxy servers, encryption and communications to download the material. No figures are given for how much revenue this generates, but at 6.5m UK consumers, it seems to be a sizeable market. I wonder who's making money out of that?
The chief cause of music industry misery actually seems to be the cost of enforcing copyright via the clunky legal system. They say it can cost £10,000 for each court order to obtain the IP address for each file sharer. I'm prepared to believe that, and I'm all for reducing the cost of enforcement. But that problem shouldn't need a "memorandum of understanding" among the rights owners' associations, network service providers and goverment, paragraph 3 of which says this:
And that implies we'll be forced to pay for premium content bundled with rubbish, like "albums" on CDs. A sort of packaged internet, chosen for us by cosy institutions.
The neutral, open internet appears to be doomed.
PS: The Society for Computers and Law response to the consultation can be viewed here, and the SCL's response to proposals to increase the penalties for criminal infringement of intellectual property rights can be viewed here.
Only figures for the music industry are cited in the consultation paper, yet various regulatory and co-regulatory solutions are proposed that will affect all copyright content online.
The paper claims that about 6.5m people in the UK (25% of UK internet users), engaged in illicit P2P file sharing in 2007. This is estimated to "cost" the "music industry" £1bn over the next 5 years, against revenues of about £1bn per annum.
So, where's the problem? The "music industry's" digital music sales increased by 28% in 2007. Sure, declining CD sales resulted in a loss, but that's like saying Ford made a loss because no one wants to by the Model T anymore. It is also conceded that the decline in CD sales wasn't due to piracy alone - supermarket discounting and the shift to digital purchases were chiefly responsible. In other words, the "music industry's" woes are born of consumer dissatisfaction.
Consumers are used to getting content for free online, knowing that providers are making money out of advertising. So it's no surprise that 91% of survey respondents file-share because the content is free. More telling is that 42% say it's because they could find everything they were looking for. In other words, constraining supply by "attractively packaging content" doesn't work, and the music industry needs to get with the programme.
Of course, file sharing isn't actually not free. File-sharers spend time and pay for wireless technology, proxy servers, encryption and communications to download the material. No figures are given for how much revenue this generates, but at 6.5m UK consumers, it seems to be a sizeable market. I wonder who's making money out of that?
The chief cause of music industry misery actually seems to be the cost of enforcing copyright via the clunky legal system. They say it can cost £10,000 for each court order to obtain the IP address for each file sharer. I'm prepared to believe that, and I'm all for reducing the cost of enforcement. But that problem shouldn't need a "memorandum of understanding" among the rights owners' associations, network service providers and goverment, paragraph 3 of which says this:
"Many legal online content services already exist as an alternative to unlawful copying and sharing but signatories agree on the importance of competing to make available to consumers commercially available and attractively packaged content in a wide range of user-friendly formats as an alternative to unlawful file-sharing, for example subscription, on demand, or sharing services."One shudders to think what is meant by "attractively packaged content". But it's implicit that any such packaging will be done by, and must suit, the few industry players who signed the MOU.
And that implies we'll be forced to pay for premium content bundled with rubbish, like "albums" on CDs. A sort of packaged internet, chosen for us by cosy institutions.
The neutral, open internet appears to be doomed.
PS: The Society for Computers and Law response to the consultation can be viewed here, and the SCL's response to proposals to increase the penalties for criminal infringement of intellectual property rights can be viewed here.
No comments:
Post a Comment