A sound decision

Becky Hogge

Published 06 December 2007

Record labels have realised that suing their customers is bad for business

A rare note of contrition was heard from the Warner Music boss Edgar Bronfman as he addressed an audience at a conference in Macau. As MacUser magazine reported in the middle of last month, Bronfman's assertion that the recording industry had "inadvertently gone to war with consumers" was a rare public confession - the blame for the rise of illicit peer-to-peer (p2p) file-sharing of copyrighted content lies partly at the feet of the industry and the glacial pace at which it has responded to consumer demand for digital music.

So when Reuters reported that EMI was considering cutting its funding to trade bodies, it was tempting to join the dots. These trade bodies - organisations such as the RIAA, IFPI and BPI - have made their name suing unlawful file-sharers on behalf of the industry. And, as Sony BMG's head of litigation revealed under cross-examination to a surprised Minnesota courtroom at the beginning of October, the programme of systematically suing their own customers has not proved a great money-earner.

Business is generally bad in the recording industry as worldwide sales continue to plummet. EMI was recently bought out by the Terra Firma private equity fund run by Guy Hands, who announced to potential investors last month that he would be able to trim management costs by £100m per year by curbing excesses such as perks for executives, including use of a £5.6m property in Mayfair.

The rumoured cuts to funding trade bodies could well be part of this belt-tightening. But technologists will inevitably interpret the rumours differently. After all, EMI was the first label to drop consumer-unfriendly digital rights management technology, and Hands, reacting to Radiohead's online release of their album In Rainbows earlier in the autumn, warned EMI that it needed to "embrace digital or die".

Yet recording industry lobbyists should not chuck out their Westminster visitors' passes too soon. Regardless of whether or not the battle to sue p2p file-sharers into submission is quite yet lost, the war rages on, and in the vast fields of France, a new front is opening up. To cries of despair from consumer groups, the French government recently announced an agreement to experiment with cutting off the internet connections of people suspected to be sharing content illegally. The plan is unlikely to work - the technologies to filter traffic are not accurate enough to ensure the right people get cut off - but this might not be enough to stop the plan coming here.

The recording industry has been the first and worst hit by the disruption of the internet, and its battles are a template for other industries, and a society in general, challenged by the new information environment. If the lobbyists are good for something, it is to demonstrate to the rest of us the general futility of fighting against technological change.

Post this article to

  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • newsvine
  • Reddit

3 comments from readers

gnuneo
06 December 2007 at 14:19

what is deeply worrying about this decision by france (& belgium?) to try to cut off P2P users at source, is that they WILL try to develop the technology to filter through individual net connections.

whilst the whole P2P battle is essentially lost, although the Haigian generals in the music biz might not accept it, this new development in technological surveillance will, unless it is explicitly prevented from so doing, be then utilised against political activists, human rights orgs, and others our political and corporate rulers dislike.

THIS is the real threat, not whether pierre can download the latest 'Man Formerly Known As Ponce' singles.

and on this, the whole net community should be organising and protesting about.

dawnmarie
06 December 2007 at 14:57

I agree with you; if we allow the unchecked policing and disconnection of the internet for those assumed to be creating infractions, we run the risk of government and big money silencing the People. This in turn strips everyone of the freedom we all take for granted in an open-source, transparent world.

Taken further, controlling the accessability of the internet will ultimately create manipulated impressions; we will become slaves to the subjective whims of the privileged and empowered.

I do not disagree that artists need to develop a method, particularly along with the labels that represent them, to monetize their art in the new medium. They are irrefutably deserving of copyright protection and monetary reward for the perpetuation of their art, which is a reflection of our culture. Intellectual property is a dynamic part of our GDP, and the health of our economy.

However, shutting down internet access to presumed pirates implicates a policed state and rewinds the liberties and freedoms we are oft to begrudge.

What people do not relaize is that this is the first step in the revocation of our freedom; if unchecked, the results will be disaterous. We blithely give away our freedoms, crying foul at peer-to-peer networks, never comprehending the internet was created as a tool to share knowledge, interact with different cultures and engage in a socially connected manner with the rest of the world.

FREEONE
06 January 2008 at 15:45

Just because an individual business, (record company) has an issue with an individual (possible pirate) does not give them the right to prevent that individual from using his communication facilities. Only the government can prevent this through basically imprisonment, and it should not be working for private or public firms.

Post your comment

Please note: you will need to login or register before you can comment on the website

About the writer

Becky Hogge

Becky Hogge is a writer and technologist. She was formerly the technology director of award-winning current affairs website openDemocracy.net, and Executive Director of the Open Rights Group, a grassroots digital civil liberties organisation.

Read More

Vote!

Should we build new nuclear power plants?

Suggest a question

View comments

© New Statesman 1913 – 2009

Tracker