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 Legal Top Stories
CMU says: Mandelson’s three-strikes commitment
By Chris Cooke | Published on Thursday 29 October 2009
So what, I hear you ask, does CMU think? OK, you probably didn’t ask. And we gave our opinion in a nicely succinct two sentences yesterday. But hey, here it is again, in a slightly more verbose – or detailed – fashion.
I’m not especially anti-three-strikes, particularly when the deterrent is suspension rather than disconnection. And sensational talk of “guilty until proven innocent” is a deliberate misunderstanding of the law. ISPs aren’t the defenders of consumer rights they portray themselves as, they are just terrified of any increased liability for their customers’ actions, mainly because of the financial implications; net providers operate on stupidly small profit margins having all jumped head first into a dumb price war a few years back.
And as a general rule web companies, whether they be ISPs or the Yahoos and Googles of this world, completely underrate the value of good content, and the risks content funders take when investing in new talent. True, record companies and collecting societies totally overrate the value, but whereas content companies have a commercial interest in investing big chunks of their profits in new creative talent, for web firms content is a means to an end.
But will three-strikes stop online piracy? No, of course it won’t. And it’s important the music industry doesn’t let three-strikes become the distraction that digital rights management technology and file-sharer litigation proved to be at the start of the decade. The music industry needs to plough forward with new models – more fostering of artist/fan relationships, more monetising what was previously promotional content, and more reinvention of the way investors and creators work together.
Purdham’s point is also valid. The only reason I’ve come round to newer anti-piracy proposals like three-strikes is because the argument that people file-share because of a lack of compelling legit music services – once a very good argument – no longer stacks up. There’s flippin loads of legit music services, and some of them are marvellous. But most of these services – while paying out to the music companies – are currently funded by venture capital and similar investment money.
That’s not sustainable, and if Purdham is right, that most of these services can’t last long term without a radical overhaul of music licensing, then a radical overhaul there will have to be. Still, the record companies and music publishers have moved several miles in their attitude to new licensing models in the last three yeas, so, Steve, it’ll take time and you’ll need some plasters for all the wall hitting your head will do, but I reckon we’ll get there. And providing we do, the three-strikes deterrent – with a workable appeals process – is probably justified.
