This website uses cookies so that we can provide you with the best user experience possible. Cookie information is stored in your browser and performs functions such as recognising you when you return to our website and helping our team to understand which sections of the website you find most interesting and useful.
Business News Labels & Publishers Legal Top Stories
Industry responds to Mandelson’s three-strikes commitment
By CMU Editorial | Published on Thursday 29 October 2009
Peter Mandelson yesterday told reporters he was confident his previously reported three-strike proposals would slip through parliament on the nod, and would prove effective in reducing the amount of illegal file-sharing that goes on.
As previously reported, the Lord yesterday used the government-organised creative business jolly C&binet to confirm a three-strikes system would be included in the Digital Economy Bill due to go before parliament next month. The deterrent will be net suspension for naughty file-sharers who fail to heed written warnings (or who just can’t read, I suppose), though the suspensions won’t actually happen until Summer 2011. Just on the off chance every single file-sharer stops file-sharing when they get their note from Mandy.
Asked how his proposal compared to three-strikes system being introduced in France, which seems, by all accounts, to be more draconian, not least because they are talking about disconnections rather than suspensions, Mandelson told reporters: “The French approach is based on criminal law, as I understand it, therefore ours is different. Our approaches to this are not identical. But our system will be no less effective for that”.
Needless to say, there was a mixed response to Mandelson’s confirmation that three-strikes was on the British legislative agenda. The boss of record label trade body the BPI, Geoff Taylor, thought it was swell news. He told CMU: “We welcome the government’s vision that the internet should be an environment that rewards British creativity. Music companies are supporting a wide range of new digital services to offer consumers unprecedented choice in accessing music online, in a way that rewards the artists they love. The measures confirmed today by government are a proportionate way of encouraging illegal file-sharers to embrace the new services, and will drive further innovation that will benefit online consumers”.
Over at UK Music Towers Feargal Sharkey proclaimed thus: “The music industry [knows] that it is the market that will prove the ultimate deterrent to piracy. However, for this market to develop and for the UK’s creative industries to meet their goals and aspirations in a digital age, intervention by government is essential. We therefore continue to welcome Lord Mandelson’s commitment and support on this issue. In this context, right holders must also continue to licence, adapt and diversify their business models, while ISPs must evolve beyond a ‘mere conduit’ status and join with us as partners in a shared digital future as we increase our dialogue with fans”.
On the other side of the debate, internet service provider TalkTalk, one of the most vocal opponents to three-strikes, accused Mandelson of proposed a “guilty until proven innocent” system, claiming accused file-sharers would be subject to a “kangaroo court”. Which I’ve always thought was a bit of an offensive term myself, who are we to judge the judicial processes of the kangaroos?
Anyway, TalkTalk’s Andrew Heaney said this: “The approach is based on the principle of ‘guilty until proven innocent’ and substitutes proper judicial process for a kangaroo court. We know this approach will lead to wrongful accusations”. He added that his company might fight any suspension orders in the courts on human rights grounds, telling the Guardian: “If the government moves to stage two we would consider that extra-judicial technical measures and would look to appeal the decision [to the courts] because it infringes human rights. TalkTalk will continue to resist any attempts to make it impose technical measures on its customers unless directed to do so by a court or recognised tribunal”.
Less confrontational, but still critical of the proposals, was We7 boss Steve Purdham. He’s become increasingly vocal of late about the need for record companies to completely overhaul the way they license music to legit music platforms, arguing that only the existence of compelling licensed music services will ultimately combat file-sharing. While a plethora of such services have arrived on the scene in the last eighteen months, he argues those services will only survive long term – ie once the venture capital runs out – if there is a totally new approach to digital music licensing.
Responding to Mandelson’s speech, Purdham told CMU yesterday afternoon: “This is a move which is directed at protecting the media industry and copyright law, but one which entirely misses the heart of the issue. Piracy is a reaction to an unsustainable situation, where reasonable, legitimate access to music has struggled to match demand. File-sharing sites have risen in the gulf between what consumers wanted and what has been available. Internet users don’t want to use P2P networks; most are far from intuitive, full of sub-standard products and leave users’ computers open to attack and infection. In the same way that the vast majority of consumers buy products from reputable retailers and not on the black market, most would rather support artists and their livelihood by consuming licensed music”.
He continues: “Creating a variety of reasonable and sustainable models for providing music to consumers is key to ending rampant piracy. This is the approach that should be taken by the government rather than criminalising consumers and driving pirates further into the undergrowth. At We7, we believe that sustainable ad-funded music is a first step in migrating the pirate to legitimate consumption. In order to keep generating the music we love, artists need to be paid. People want to support the music they care about. But it is not for them to find a way to do that; the onus is on the government and the industry to monetise music instead of demonising and punishing the general public”.
So there you go.
