The latest Ofcom survey of internet users in the UK shows that less than half believes downloading shared copies of copyright music and films should be illegal. 42% say it should be illegal, against 33% who believe it shouldn’t be illegal and 25% who don’t know.
I’m not aware of comparable figures for other laws, but 42% strikes me as being a very low figure. It highlights another problem with the Government’s dalliance with taking tough (sounding) measures to enforce the law. Though Labour now is backing away from the idea that someone could be cut off from the internet without any need to follow a judicial process, that still leaves the question of whether a crack down is really technically workable or the best long term solution. The softness of public support for the law in this area adds another reason to doubt whether the Government is on the right course.
Most strikingly, there has been a clear drop in the popularity of filesharing in the UK – and that wasn’t caused by a crack down but by the increasing availability of legal downloads:
In December 2007 42% of 14-18s were file sharing at least once a month. In January 2009 this was down to just 26%.
The example I’ve used before – wanting to re-watch Mark Cavendish win the last stage of this year’s Tour de France – is still a striking one. There are lots of illegal uploads available for me to watch. What’s extremely difficult to find is any legal way of watching it again (save for an expensive compilation DVD). The real problem there is the lack of availability of legal options. I’m happy to pay to see that clip again. Catch me at the right moment and I’ll even say I want to pay. But that industry doesn’t want my money.
Follow @LibDemVoice on Twitter
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Michael's weekly ward surgeries today! #dundeewestend
The past continues to haunt the UK's anti-corruption ministers
Richard Jefferies: The granddaddy of nature writing
Craig Levene
Alex Macfie
Mick Taylor
9 Comments
Clear evidence of a problem with public support for laws to protect copyright then. And I agree that it’s tantalising having the stuff one wants at one’s fingertips, yet having no way to obtain it legitimately.
What would be your solution, Mark?
Opening up legal download frameworks is definitely the way forward. In the terms of the music industry I believe over the next 15 years we will see a shift to completely free music. With the ability for bands to create, public and release their own material and dozens of sites to showcase it the traditional “buy a CD & listen to the radio” approach controlled by major labels won’t continue to work and they are starting to realise that.
More and more streaming content is becoming free with sites like Spotify (even if the labels have taken huge shareholdings in them to do it). I think as time moves on we’ll see more deals like this from the music industry with revenues being recovered from touring rights and merchandise rather than audio sales. Live Nation (a promoter) signing up big bands rather labels is the start of this.
The problem comes with TV/movies as I don’t think the same option exists due to revenue streams available to creators and the relatively expensive cost of producing a movie versus an album. The film and TV industry are going to have to be the really creative ones – and they are the ones currently lagging behind in terms of technology and legal ways to download, especially in the UK.
I pay monthly for a Sky HD subscription, but I can also download the same TV shows in higher quality HD (1080p rather than 1080i) a week earlier if I want to on the internet. For many people the question exists “If I’m paying, why should I have to wait weeks or months?” and in a consumer-driven age they go to do the download anyway. TV/movie companies are really going to have to address this.
One thing I am vehemently against is kicking people off the internet (even with a 3 strikes system) for downloads. Firstly it’s almost impossible to prove that the person you are convicting was sat at their computer and the one that pressed the download button (without rather scary hidden cameras in peoples’ homes) unless they live alone on a virus-free computer without any WiFi in the house.
Secondly, the law exists for dealing with copyright infringement. We currently have a government who seem to love to legislate. There are already legal punishments for breaching copyright – and they should simply be imposed. It is illegal to shoplift, but if someone steals 3 times from a shop we don’t ban them from going to the shops – it’s a similar situation. The internet has become a basic tool for people to conduct day-to-day life and to that end people should be able to use it. If they break the law, then they should be taken to court and have a verdict decided based within that – a fine or a prison sentence.
OK, I’ve been round this since the days of Napster, if not before. You perform, you get copyright on the performance, which allows you to dictate the terms of use and distribution of copies of that performance. Insofar as a download or redistribution of a .mp3 file might be against the copyright-holder’s wishes, it feels wrong and should be illegal.
What I really disagree with, however, is the disproportionality exhibited by the music industry. It’s not just preaching to the converted: those who buy legitimate copies of DVDs are subjected to over-dramatized shocking insulting insinuations that they might buy the wrong thing and should not do so; the industry seems to think “damages” run into thousands of pounds per file downloaded when in reality they sell the same file for 79p; and the performing artist generally receives precisely bugger-all of the proceeds. This is unfair and unjust and must be remedied.
Realistic solution? The media industry has proven they don’t want to play, because fighting the internet is more profitable in the short term. Nuke the lot of them with a mandatory licensing scheme for the public. We already have one of these for the radio: if you run a radio station and you want to play a song, then you just play it, and send a cheque to the relevant company at the end of the month. The license is mandated by law so the media company cannot refuse it or set any conditions; they can offer you a better deal than the statutory fee (but usually don’t), but that’s all. It’s simple, it works. Extend it to apply to all citizens instead of just radio stations, with reasonable fees that are comparable to what itunes is currently offering (I see no reason why a store that bundles it all up and provides it to you in a convenient format should not continue to make a profit).
It would pretty much exterminate the big media companies and their supporting industry of lobbyists and lawyers, but I don’t see a problem with that. Artists would be slightly better off since they would have a higher chance of getting paid (big media companies generally find ways to not pay artists any royalties at all). File sharing systems would cease to be a problem because they would be more or less legal – they’d become the sort of utility service that Napster wanted to be.
Sadly, I can’t see any government doing it, not with all the lobbyist scaremongering.
“Firstly it’s almost impossible to prove that the person you are convicting was sat at their computer and the one that pressed the download button (without rather scary hidden cameras in peoples’ homes) unless they live alone on a virus-free computer without any WiFi in the house.”
Doesn’t seem to be a problem in child porn downloading cases. OK the material there is illegal per se but the situations are analagous.
@Hywel – my statement should be the case in child porn cases as well. There is, however, a difference in child pornography cases from what I know of the systems.
In the case of child pornography suspicion a computer is taken away for forensic examination by the police. This process can take a couple of years and in cases where “trojan viruses” or third party use of the computer is found the CPS or police have often stopped investigations unless there is other evidence such as an individual’s credit card use or videos/DVDs/photographs as a suspected individuals property.
With downloading MP3s/videos this thorough investigation is not done and often it is merely a matter of the record labels reporting an IP address of a suspected individual to the police and proceedings based solely around that.
If every individual who were suspected of downloading were to have such a thorough investigation the proposition wouldn’t be quite so abhorrent – but I would argue there is better use of police time and resources than dedicating an expensive cyber-squad to analysing downloaders of MP3s.
Lonely Wanderer: I’m not sure … yet – still thinking about the issue!
One option is just to ignore the media companies who oppose filesharing, and the acts who sign to them. There are plenty of artists who are happy to let you share their music (particularly if you’re not doing it for profit) – not just big bands like Nine Inch Nails and Radiohead, but every band signed to Magnatune and other labels which use Creative Commons licenses which explicitly allow sharing.
Mark – that’s one of the best responses you could have given. And a bit unexpected, to be honest. I was expecting you had it all worked out! 😉
I read so many super-confident responses (on all sides) to this particular issue, some more persuasive than others, but all convinced of their absolute rightness. But I’m not sure yet what should be done. So it’s great to find someone else still thinking about it.