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
AIM join the three-strikes debate
By CMU Editorial | Published on Thursday 24 September 2009
Anyone not familiar with the music industry must be wondering just how many music-based trade associations there are out there to comment on the government’s previously reported proposals to introduce more hardline measures to combat illegal file-sharing. As much previously reported, the BPI, MU, MPA, MMF, FAC, ERA, BASCA, MPG, UK Music and most of the key members of the CPA have all had an opinion so far, and I’m assuming PPL and PRS have a viewpoint too, though pedants might point out they’re not technically speaking trade associations. Either way, there’s certainly no shortage of trade bodies in this business called music.
Anyway, the Association Of Independent Music is the latest trade body to let its opinion on the matter be known. As much previously reported, last month the government floated proposals that it introduce new laws that force internet service providers to introduce a ‘graduated response’ system to tackle illegal file-sharing which could ultimately see persistent file-sharers having their net access restricted or suspended. It’s a slightly more complicated version of the three-strikes system being considered in New Zealand and France. Peter Mandelson’s Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, who are leading the new proposals, have been consulting interested parties on the matter.
As part of that consultation, AIM boss Alison Wenham has submitted a letter to Mandy’s department in which she says her organisation “strongly supports” the government’s proposals. According to Music Week, Wenham’s letter reads: “We greatly appreciate your firm and clear statements as to the basic moral, as well as business, issues raised by illegal online file-sharing and piracy. After lengthy consultation, reporting and debate the time had come for a decisive statement both of principle and of legislative intent from government, and we welcome your authoritative intervention”.
She continues: “AIM cannot make the point too strongly that the predominantly small – in some cases tiny – music businesses are overwhelmingly reliant on making a fair and honest return on their recorded music output. … These businesses absolutely deserve business-orientated legislation which creates fair opportunities for them to monetise the creativity in which they invest, and earn a fair return for themselves from that investment”.
On the issue of what measures ISPs should be forced to employ against those file-sharers who ignore formal warnings, Wenham added that she supported sanctions such as the restriction and suspension of net access in the most extreme cases, providing their were safeguards to ensure innocent parties were not negatively impacted. She concludes: “We support provision for a range of sanctions which can be invoked proportionately including, with necessary safeguards, the suspension of individual broadband accounts as a last resort against the most persistent offenders”.
AIM’s position on this is very interesting. Throughout much of the early days of the file-sharing debate, when the major labels were taking individual file-sharers to court, while dabbling with tedious digital rights management technology – on both CDs and downloads – the indie sector was critical of their big business counterparts. They insisted, rightly I reckon, that suing music fans wasn’t sensible, that developing compelling legit digital music services should be a priority, and that saddling said legit services with incredibly limiting DRM, while illegal services offered DRM-free MP3s, was not the right thing to do. On all those points the major labels finally fell in line with the indies.
That the indie community’s trade body is now of one mind with the major record companies is interesting. I am assuming they would argue that the sorts of engaging and user-friendly legit digital music services they were insisting were needed five years ago are now up and running, making file-sharing harder to excuse. And that a system that puts the onus on ISPs to tackle file-sharers is better than one which sees record companies suing their own customers.
Some in the indie community have in the past talked up a blanket licensing system for net providers which would essentially legalise file-sharing by charging all net users a content levy on their monthly ISP subscriptions. Although great in principle, and still a future option, the practicalities of such a system are complex to say the least. Whether AIM’s decision to back more draconian measures to combat online piracy means they recognise licensed file-sharing is some way off I’m not sure.
Now that AIM have declared their opinion on this issue, I think pretty much all divisions within the music business have now spoken.
As previously reported, the industry is split, with the rights holders (labels and publishers) in favour of the government’s proposals, supported by the retailers and major concert promoters, while the artist, songwriting, producer and management communities are, generally, against the proposals to suspend the net access of even persistent file-sharers. They argue such measures won’t have any impact on the extent of file-sharing (because the clever file-sharers know how to avoid detection), and will just piss off music fans and make them more prone to steal rather than buy content.
Attempts by the majors to get managers and artists to support their viewpoint, or at least not to so vocally oppose it, haven’t really been that successful. That said, as also much previously reported, there are divisions within the artist community, with some artists saying they disagree with the Featured Artists’ Coalition, who are against the proposed net suspensions.
Lily Allen has been most vocal in supporting the government’s proposals, though others have also gone on record as saying now is the time for political types to try and stop illegal file-sharing. With that in mind the FAC has called a private meeting in London tonight where all artists are invited to debate the issue further. Whether that might lead to a change, or at least a rewording, of the FAC’s official line on the government’s proposals remains to the seen.
