LimeWire Dealt a Bitter Blow

A US federal court has issued a "permanent injunction" against LimeWire one of the world's most popular peer-to-peer filesharing websites with some 50 million monthly users. In doing so it has ruled that LimeWire intentionally promoted a "massive scale of infringement" by enabling the sharing of thousands of copyrighted works by its 50 million monthly users. The legal battle witj the US music industry has taken some four years to conclude been shut down after a four-year legal battle with the US music industry’s RIAA (Recording Industry Association of America).

Mark Gorton, a former Wall Street trader, founded LimeWire in 2000 and it is claimed by the RIAA to have cost the music industry hundreds of millions of dollars in lost revenue. The site was claimed by the NDP Group to be used by 58% of people who have downloaded music from a peer-to-peer network in the year from May 2009.

The level of damages faced by the site's New York-based parent company, Lime Group, will be decided in January 2011.

French Government To Organise A Giant Music Sale

At what level is government subsidy in the arts acceptable and where is the line? The protesters current demonstrating in France against the French government austerity measures and raising the of the pension age must be somewhat perplexed to hear that the government plans to state-subsidise the buying of music!

The plan is an attempt to convince young people that it is better buy music rather than ‘steal’ by file-sharing and involves selling pre-paid cards with a face value of 50 euros at a cost 25 euros. The French government will stump up the difference and estimates that over two years the plan will cost about 25 million euros and result in the purchase of some one million cards.

Restrictions will apply in that consumers will be limited to one card each per year and music download sites will be asked to cut the price of downloads, extend subscription periods and contribute towards the marketing campaign for the cards. Individual sites will only be allowed to receive a maximum of 5m euros from the scheme. The European Commission has approved the plan and said that it would not be anti-competitive.

Is it any different to the UK subsidy of arts such as the opera? Government already spend hard cash to support reading, libraries, schools and PLR (Public Lending Rights payments to authors) so is this any different?

Whether we agreed with file sharing music or not offering users financial subsidy isn’t going to change anything but merely further highlight the practice and opportunity. It also starts to devalue the product as the consumer sees 25 euros not 50 and is still more than zero. Finally what happens when the 50 euro card has been used? Are consumers expected to not buy anything more for the rest of the year or simply say ‘I have learnt my lesson and will now pay full price…until the next year.’

BPI To Issue Warning Letters Through Virgin Media

UK ISP, Virgin Media has agreed to work with the BPI, which represents the interests of the UK recording industry, to send out warning letters to subscribers who the BPI has identified as sharing copyrighted material. The saving grace is that they will not be adopting the draconian ‘three strikes and you’re out’ policy that was previously advocated by the BPI.

‘The Register’ claims to have obtained samples of the letters that will be sent by Virgin and the BPI to suspected copyright violators. They shy away from the possibility of disconnection, ‘We don’t want you to face legal action or risk losing your internet service.’ The letters identify the differences between legal downloads and file sharing copyright infringement.

This initiative may be seen by some as defending copyright and by others as King Canute trying to stop the rising tide. Reality is that it is merely sticking a plaster on a gaping wound. The BPI must ask itself what is the business model it is trying so hard to protect and how it value is communicated to the market? All the major producers are selling their catalogues many different ways and even enable the customer to get it free via ad paid model. What sort of message does that send out re the value of the material? The producers still get revenues, the advertisers have to pay, but the consumer sees ‘free’ and can’t appreciate the value of the copyright. The music producers have a track record of bad customer relations and bad communication and appear to be walking down the same road once again, others should know better.

Steering away from the Rocks

Today the Guardian report on ‘Home copying - burnt into teenage psyche’ and the reality that file copying is bigger than file sharing and together they are redefining the music business. Ironically last week’s Litopia podcast raised the word ‘piracy’ and whether the book industry faced the same problem. We visualize the wreckers who used to steer ships onto the Cornish rocks.

Are we not surprised to hear that research carried out by the University of Hertfordshire, suggests that, home copying remains more popular than file sharing for 18-24-year-olds and that two-thirds of people it surveyed copy five CDs a month from friends. Overall, 95% of the 1,158 people surveyed had engaged in some form of copying. It’s nothing new it’s just easier today. We fondly remember taping radio shows and albums or lending copies to friends. Music like any media is about relating, connecting and sharing. We all read in solitude but we all give or lend our friends books to read. Imagine being branded as a pirate and thief for lending someone a book?

So the question is do we once more attempt to batten down the hatches and drive more copying, open the free floodgates and is there an acceptable middle ground?
Today we live in a material world and our media and our collections reflect ourselves. We all build libraries of stuff that rarely gets aired, let alone taken down off the shelf. But must we own it and it must belong to us. Is this about ownership, unfettered access or rights? What would be the reaction if a track were only to be available online. It could be made available to play at any time on any machine and even from a number of providers but the music will remain online and never downloaded? Will this happen, can it happen, can it be broken? It doesn’t automatically presume that it’s paid for by a direct subscription model, or that it is exclusive to one service. The answer is not the issue, its whether we accept the premise of ‘ as much as we want at any time online’, or we remain wedded to having to own it in order to appreciate it?

We can’t say whether online is the answer but with emerging technologies such as the grid and connectivity anywhere and at anytime, maybe it makes sense. After all, what on earth do you want 200 books on a Kindle for? To us this is like dragging around a cart load of all our physical books just because we own them and can do it. What is the point of an iPod with thousands of tunes if we listen to the same ones? We have a cupboard with hundreds of vinyl albums and can’t remember when we last played one.
Technology always has to work within the social framework and it is impossible to find a solution to one without accepting the other.

Free to Talk Talk

The Financial section of the Guardian today reported on the latest twist in the battle of responsibility of piracy between the Internet Service Providers and the music and film industry.

TalkTalk, the internet service-provider owned by Carphone Warehouse, has openly rejected demands that it should "police" the internet and cut off some broadband customers who file share. The record industry, in the form of the British Phonographic Industry (BPI), has requested that the service providers should warn persistent illegal file-sharers and then be cut off under a "three strikes and you're out" rule. The government has through lobbying been also drawn into the debate and has said that it would look to introduce legislation next year if service providers could not agree a voluntary framework to combat piracy.

Carphone Warehouse's chief executive, Charles Dunstone is reported as saying, ‘the music industry has consistently failed to adapt to changes in technology and now seeks to foist their problems on someone else. Rather than threatening us, the BPI's time would be better spent facing up to the reality of our times and adapting its business model accordingly.’

Whether we accept file sharing or not it is a fact of life that has always gone on but is now easier through technology. Spying on what is sent and how individuals use the Internet is as damaging and as morally questionable if not more than breaking copyright. It is ludicrous that what we do over our Internet services should be monitored and that one industry can expect to set a precedent that becomes difficult to stop once started. What next? We could be faced with every email attachment, every Skype call, every file transfer all being looked at in case it was believed to be illegal. We don’t condone piracy, but we also agree that adjusting business models to suit consumer trends makes far more sense than sticking your head in the sand and asking others police your mess.

Thank you Mr Dunstone.