The Music Industry – world wide – as well as the Film Industry made the biggest profits ever, in real terms, last year, increasing on what was made the year before that, which was the old record holder, and this year is predicted to be even higher.

Downloading is negatively effecting sales of music/films/tv?

BS.

Taylor gets it wrong right from the start, when he says there’s no analogy with taping programmes off the TV. That’s just as “illegal” in the eyes of the law, and indeed the industry attempted to get video recorders banned in the 70s or 80s. They failed in this respect, and hopefully they’ll fail again.

How patronising he is: “Bill may not know there are already hundreds of licensed online and mobile services”. More like, “Bill knows there are hundreds of services selling rip-off tracks crippled with DRM”. Then he says, “Independent research has shown time after time that people who download illegally generally spend less on music than people that don’t…” I don’t doubt that, but it doesn’t prove at all that they would have bought the music if they hadn’t downloaded it. I bet in most cases they wouldn’t have. And the few cases where the industry has lost a sale are probably balanced by the cases where someone likes the music they’ve downloaded, and goes on to purchase more by the same artist. Of course, they might not buy it via a record company, which is why the industry doesn’t like it. The trouble with “legal” download services is that they are refined and sanitised, promoting tracks the industry wants to get to no. 1. It just isn’t the same as sharing other people’s music.

Anyway, thanks Bill for your article, and for contributing a different viewpoint on BBC News. I’m rather tired of their bias – or at least the way they repeat the industry spin, such as saying people have been “fined” for downloading music. The BPI is a trade association of private companies. It can invoice or sue people, but it can’t issue fines. And downloading unlicensed music is not a crime unless it’s on a commercial scale. It’s no different from taping a programme off the TV, in fact.

“[Bill Thompson’s]…misleading analogies between illegal filesharing and taping programmes off the TV he shows that even “experts” get it wrong sometimes.”

This is specious – either that content is subject to copyright or it isn’t. To make out that music is somehow different is plain wrong. How is it different? Only in that Geoff Taylor doesn’t represent the TV or film industry.

“More than six and a half million people in the UK illegally access and distribute music, and it is plain wrong to say that this is good for music.”

He acknowledges that music companies are adapting to the way people listen to music, but this still doesn’t address how people share music. People have always shared music – and ‘oh my!’ they’ll not always have paid for the product or the use of that product – and the supporting technology has always been there.

But it hasn’t, despite what I wrote in a previous comment, killed off the music industry and it’s in good shape. The choice is huge, live acts are thriving, festivals are in abundance and there are so many new ways to experience music these days. (DAB, Internet Radio & Last.fm have revived my personal interest).

“The record companies themselves have adjusted to these times of transition, and the BPI is fighting to promote and protect the value of copyright, to allow their new models space to breathe.”

Restricting people’s use of music they have legitimately paid for, just because the technology now exists, is plain wrong. In some cases, this ‘fight’ appears contrary to consumer rights.

A recent case in the US highlights the extent to which the music industry is prepared to go, to extend the terms of copyright. In this case, Universal claimed that they were the rightful owner of promotional CDs, being the ‘creator’. And yet, it was OK for a Beatles promo record to be sold at auction by Sotheby’s in the early 1990s (I suspect, because that helps generate interest in the artist and is ultimately good for sales). Needless to say, this was thrown out by the judge.

“We believe that ISPs, far from being a simple pipe, can become significant distributors of digital media, and share in the tremendous value that would be unleashed if more music were accessed legally online.”

As a previous poster commented, steer clear of those content providers who are also service (or hardware) providers. It’s a conflict of interests and not good for consumer choice – ‘lock-ins’ and restricted content or access provided at ‘Sky’-high prices. Tremendous value, my ar*e.

“We collect and pass on to the ISP publically available information about their customers’ illegal filesharing.”

What information is ‘publically’ (sic) available? Please clarify, Mr Taylor.

However, I don’t disagree with you. There must be very few people who would not be happier to see more of the money go to artists, instead of lining big corporations’ pockets.

And there are plenty of artists who are using innovative ways to distribute their music – free downloads, give-aways, ‘pay-what-you-like’ models, streaming, content subsidised by advertising, etc.

A lot of these models are risks, not guaranteed to make a return and as such, they don’t always pay off, but then that’s always been the case in the music industry, when a fickle audience can turn against an artist and they are dropped like that. It’s still as much about building an identity and a following.

But some of these newer models often cut out the middlemen and to me, that’s really the crux of the matter; whose interests are the BPI really serving, the artists’ or the labels’?

The digital age has empowered musicians (and writers and artists) and has brought them closer to the end-user than ever before.
Home studios, the internet and technology to publish, broadcast and release material directly to an audience pretty much in real-time if they choose. No wonder record labels and publishers feel they are losing out.

And yes, people share music, but that was the case before the Internet came into existence. Have you never lent someone a CD or a record? I hope you ensured they never copied it when you got it back.

There are as many new models as there arguments by the BPI why the old business models should hold true. But the labels want to make big bucks NOW and are dragging archaic business models with them from another era (dinosaurs, eh? Cor!).

They never wanted to explore new ways of engaging with the end-users, but end-users were years ahead of them and have forced them to look at how music is distributed and how people listen to it. But still, they want to lock users in, limit their options and their rights over music they have purchased, as if this will somehow make them more money – I can no longer play some MP3s I purchased thanks to some download services…and that plain sucks. If anything, it will turn people away and on to means of circumvention.

Oh, and if you have any ideas of your own, please feel free to share them.

Apparently it was much too hard for Mr Thompson, who copied out the usual talking points from Boing Boing or the EFF and the other ant-copyright lobbyists, as he has done for years.

@Mark
“The BPI response to this article is full of the same self-deluding nonsense they’ve been pushing for years, albeit spun in a more modern way”

No, it was a refreshing change for the BPI. Maybe something important is going on as the music business faces up to reality at last?

Mr Thompson and the Merry Old Freetards are really starting to look like dinosaurs.

seriously though… that stitch up job of a news article is outrageous, the bbc should really stand up for its employees and principles on these matters, however as some one who knows only too much about the unique way the bbc is funded, i’m not too surprised they chickened out

Until the music industry stops trying to micro-manage how we personally use the music we’ve paid for, and ends the widespread perception of “rip-off”, people will find ways to circumvent restriction. They’d be better off putting their money into developing genuine and compelling talent than making lawyers rich and flogging the same tired “formula” acts.

Between Phorm and the BPI, virgin are getting into bed with the wrong people, and I’ve no doubt their customers will eventually let them know in no uncertain terms by leaving.

But for an insight into the desperation of the music industry (in particular), the fallacy of some of their arguments and tactics to which they will stoop, may I suggest this article as a starting point?

If any data/information/whatever is transmitted FREE through radio waves/internet pipes/my letter box – then the supplier can no longer have the same expectations of ownership. Whilst even I wouldn’t deny broadcasters their copyright – once a TV episode (for example) has been broadcast publically for free, how is passing this to others who have not seen it a crime? I’ll gladly say that the selling of such material, or music and film piracy (where no public freedom is ever granted) is illegal – but not the redistribution of already freely distributed media. This reinforces a really troubling trend of large companies thinking they can force through legislation that is in their and not the publics interests, and that is a slippery slope.

@Bill – keep up the great work and great articles.

P