Punishing piracy: the web reaction

The subject of illegal downloads generates plenty of anger on both sides, and internet service providers’ plans to reduce connection speeds for people who download music illegally have provoked yet more outrage.

"How dare you defend thieves?" asks Alex, commenting on the Times Online report. "It’s not the music industry alone that suffers, but honest musicians … Theft is theft." Other readers suggest that the plan is motivated by record label greed and laziness, while many are quick to draw political conclusions. "Further evidence of Zanu-Labour progressing the UK to dictatorship," claims Jonathan Sklan-Willis in Manchester.

The Register, a tech news website, wonders whether such a dictatorship could be imposed, even if it were desired. "Virgin Media and BT have both threatened customers with disconnection, but generally ISPs aren’t keen to shoulder the costs of monitoring or to adopt the role of policemen," its report says. "Signing up to a ‘voluntary’ code is probably the only way they can avoid - or more likely mute - legislation."

For Robert Andrews, of PaidContent.org, the deal wasn’t all that voluntary. It was struck under government pressure, he notes, and that won’t go away: "The threat of legislation will stay on the table – the Government's own proposal for such action will be published today, suggesting either a levy on copying hardware, a compulsion on ISPs to filter traffic or a French-style ‘three-strikes-and-you're-out’ disconnection warning system."

The French system – two warnings for file sharers followed by disconnection if they’re caught a third time – was given the thumbs down by Times Online's Jonathan Richards, who said it was "like holding a tissue up to the breeze". The shifting nature of peer-to-peer networks will always keep them one step ahead of the law, he writes. The solution? "Most record-label executives agree that the near-term solution is for ISPs to offer unlimited access to a large music library as part of a customer's broadband package - and share in the revenue."

Another Times Online writer, Bernhard Warner, agreed that such a move would help to redefine the debate about file-sharing, but argued that ISPs may benefit more than artists or consumers.

"Giving the ISPs an alternative to peer-to-peer bazaars, one for which they can charge, potentially solves two of their biggest problems: declining operating margins resulting from bruising competition and escalating bandwidth costs of file-sharing," he wrote when the idea was first proposed. "To put it mildly, the ISPs are getting a good deal here."

For a few hours this morning it looked as if this hypothetical debate would become less hypothetical.

"Rumours are circulating that a deal has been cut to allow the ISPs to offer a legal peer-to-peer service at a relatively low subscription cost (as low as £30 per year) on top of the standard ISP charge," Tom Dunmore wrote on the Future Stuff blog. "Details of the deal are far from clear - but cheap, legal peer-to-peer music sharing undoubtedly poses a huge threat not just to existing subscription services like Napster and Emusic, but also to the dominance of Apple's iTunes."

The report was soon denied, but not before it had been welcomed and condemned on several other blogs. In the middle ground, the emerging consensus is that making legal downloads easier, cheaper and more convenient is the only hope for record labels and, increasingly, for film studios.

"Of course there are people who don't want to pay for their music and films, but I believe that the vast majority of downloaders are people like me who would gladly pay if the content was available to purchase when I wanted it in the format I want it," writes A VC, a New York-based blogging venture capitalist.

"Let's take The Dark Night. Let's say that I'd really rather watch it at home on my big screen. I know I can get it on bit torrent so I do that. If it was available to be purchased the same day it went live in the theaters, I'd be happy to pay $20 for the right to watch it at home. But the film companies want to maintain their release windows so it's not available. So its to bit torrent that I and thousands of others go."

The entertainment industry, one commenter suggests, is missing out by seeing file-sharers as a problem rather than an opportunity. "It is so boring hearing their 'woe is me' story over and over again," writes Agawley. "They seem incapable of making a single commercial move to take advantage of the massive interest in their products that has been driven by the internet."

Comments

[Neil]

What about the genuine file sharing between record and promotion companies with us Journalists and reviewers, and DJ's who remix product for return to the record companies?
This has not been thought out well at all. MCPS and PPL have converged with a dubbing licence that is unrealistic in its use and execution, and PRS are panicking about venues who use music. The music companies are certainly getting greedy, and don't believe the hype that they are losing money. Without a 'Buzz' created, they would not sell anything.

[richard]

It may be hard for some to bear in mind, but there are actually other uses for the internet than swapping music. I run charity websites and fail to see why I should in any way subsidize poverty-stricken ISPs, the groaning victims of music piracy (formerly known as the Princes of Payola) or the poor oppressed ministers of HMG. A pox on their greedy little snouts.

The first thing that's needed is research to establish whether there's actually a problem. One Canadian research report suggested that illegal downloaders not only weren't the reason sales of CDs were shrinking, they may be the only thing propping up the market.

[Henry]

I completely agree richard it would be nice for the people of britain to actually be given the information and the basis for this harsh and invasive move before it happens, rather than just the word of our ever trusted big business!

The complete obliteration of our online privacy seems to be a somewhat harsh privacy to safeguard the business of certain companies, who judging by the music videos, award ceremonies, ringtones blaring at me constantly and so on seem to be doing perfectly fine. They are certainly making more money than your average UK company.

[AJ]

Pop stars begging in the streets. I step over them wherever I go. The industry which gave us the stretch limousine has gone from the obscene to the contemptible.

[Gary]

This is just another step towards the "big brother" society we're being led blindly into.

Tell me why, if the movie and music companies are losing so much money to piracy, can they still pay the muli-million pound fees for actors and artists?

I for one, am tired of seeing these people flaunting their big houses, money, numerous cars and over the top jewellery in our faces all the time, then having the nerve to tell us the're not getting enough cash!

I think the BPI, MPAA etc are targeting online activity because it's both popular and easy, but it's in no way different to recording songs from radio and TV.

I subscribe to Napster and have access to unlimited downloads/playback while subscribed, and that suits me fine but there are a lot of tracks and artists which are not available on there.

I believe that until a universal library of music/artists and even movies is available under the same (low cost) subscription system you will always have the problem of people downloading illegally from the internet. But that is highly unlikely to happen under the current outdated business model held by the entertainment industry, releasing movies/DVDs in the US weeks or months before the rest of the world for example.

[Lawrence]

I personally think that with these legislations in place, it will be extremely difficult to feel "comfortable" using the internet, in respect of the way it is to be carried out.

How are we to know what we are allowed to look at and what not to look at! What if, by chance or some insanely annoying "pop-up".

It will only be a matter of time before we are completely unable to choose whar we are allowed to view and what we aren't. Invariably, i do think it will only be a matter of time before someone finds a way around it, then there will be even more restrictions to the Internet.

It is something that has a growing population (downloading) but in all honesty when the "Stars" are flaunting it like they do. Do they not have enough? what is enough?

[clivex]

I've just checked my play.com order history and I have purchased 534 items - mainly DVDs - at a cost of over £9000.00 since I started using them. I have also purchased over 200 DVDs from playusa.com where I get my region 1 discs. I have 8 items on pre-order, all Blu-ray.

I do download on occassion, usually a movie that I have already seen at the cinema (I've seen The Dark Knight twice already) and if it is a movie I like I always get the DVD. Personally I like the DVD extras such as commentary tracks, deleted scenes, making of videos and suchlike that you can not get with a low quality P2P download.

Don't suggest to me that I am robbing the movie companies. I have bought the three original Star Wars films on 4.3 VHS, widescreen VHS, remastered widescreen VHS, special edition widescreen VHS, special edition DVD, original theatrical version DVD. And I'm pretty sure I will end up getting them on Blu-ray as well. 21 purchases in all.

Poor old George Lucas. Let's pass the hat around for him, eh?

[Nicolai Wium]

The biggest broadband company in Denmark, TDC, have already started to offer legal downloads of more than 100.000 songs as part of their broadband package (TDC Play), at no additional charge for the customer.

This could easily spread to other companies and other countries, as it seems very popular.

[Alastair]

"I've just checked my play.com order history and I have purchased 534 items - mainly DVDs - at a cost of over £9000.00"

I've downloaded more than that and haven't paid a bean. You may think you occupy some moral high-ground, but it's you who has the £9000 hole in your pocket, and, no offence intended, I think that makes you a mug.

[clivex]

Alastair, I don't think I'm a 'mug' for buying product that I WANT to own. I'd rather watch a DVD quality film I've paid for than a low quality download. Most downloads look pretty crappy on a 40inch flatscreen. Sound can be bad too with no surround sound, just stereo.

Sure, I may download a copy first, before it's available to buy. And I don't necessarily buy at full RRP. Most DVDs I buy when released are at least 30% less than the shop price and if you wait a few months you can pick up most films for £2.99, £3.99 or £4.99 - the price of a couple of beers.

Dunno about the 'moral high-ground' you are referring to, I just pay for high quality products that I like. And hey, it's only money after all...

[Hugh Parthing]

I think the "freeing" of music is good. Im not convinced that an artists job is to have too much money and possibly not even to earn a living from it. Music is an expression of feelings, all people have these feelings, particularly those undergoing the grind of life. Overpaid artists no longer are in that grind....

Anybody truly creative will work out a way to get an audienc for themselves AS WELL as play music and probably hold down a job.

This is how it will be......

[Ricardo]

Music is art and the value of art is subjective - people pay for art what they feel it is worth - but copyright law must prevail.

How may times should one have to pay for the same thing only in different format (VHS, CD, DVD etc.)? Wow - "illegal" downloads anyone?

Secondly, has anybody actually considered that Apple with iTunes is the biggest driver of illgeal downloads? Only 99c in the US, but 1.60 for the exactly same thing in the UK (if one uses todays exchange rates)! At that rate, iTunes should be 50p - illegal downloads anyone?

Lastly, ever considered why there are regional zones for DVD's - in this GLOBAL environment we all function these days? Protectionism at its very best. Please explain why I need to purchase 6 copies of the same thing as I travel around the world - wow - illegal downloads anyone?