Digi-pirates and barons

THE Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform is conducting a consultation on "legislative options to address illicit peer-to-peer file sharing" - downloading music from the internet as it's better known to most of us.

This follows the 2006 Gowers review which recommended "industry agreement of protocols ... to remove and disbar users engaged in 'piracy'."

It all began in the late 1990s with the emergence of Napster, a US-based file-sharing site that enabled users to share their music files, which was closed down as a dotcom company in 2001 following a lawsuit from the Recording Industry Association of America.

The publicity surrounding the lawsuit helped increase Napster's subscriber base from 9 million to 50 million.

In the Napster case, multimillionaire artists like Dr Dre and Metallica were wheeled into court to bemoan lost revenue on behalf of their corporate publishers. The case sparked a flowering of new improved subscriberless technologies that enabled file sharing without a Napster-style corporate hub.

Research cited in the consultation shows that between 25-43 per cent of all internet users download copyrighted music. This rises to 63 per cent among young people, who download an average of 53 tracks per month.

But is this so different from the past, when millions bought blank cassettes in bulk to record albums from their mates onto tape? And is the music industry really losing £1bn over five years, as it alleges?

Young people download music, just as they copied it onto blank tapes a generation ago, because they can't afford to buy it. It remains overpriced. So the music industry is losing only a tiny fraction, as most of the illicit downloaders have little disposable income.

Don't get me wrong, I think musicians should be able to make a living from their craft, but it's highly questionable that the ability to make a living is seriously threatened.

Musicians agree. A US survey of professional musicians in 2004 found that 60 per cent thought that lawsuits against individuals would not benefit them in any way. Only 3 per cent thought that the internet had a negative effect on their ability to protect their work.

This great mutually beneficial sharing phenomenon is costing the corporates, though, and so the government department dedicated to business is consulting on ways to tackle the problem.

The music publishing division of EMI made a profit of £106m last year, while Sony BMG currently scrapes by on a profit of over £100m per quarter.

Today, it isn't just music that is downloaded but films, books and even games, which resulted in Topware Interactive successfully suing a British woman for over £16,000 recently for sharing a 3D pinball game.

Which rather begs the question - why is the government consulting on further enforcement when prosecutions, with generous settlements, are already being secured?

Some of the options under consideration look largely incompatible with various EC directives, while others simply implore ISPs and copyright-holders to conspire more effectively.

The consultation document can be downloaded - legally - from the DBERR website and the deadline for responses is October 30.

Andrew Fisher is co-ordinator of ConsultationWatch - www.consultationwatch.org.uk