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
Ten years on from Napster, the BPI boss on P2P then and now
By CMU Editorial | Published on Tuesday 30 June 2009
The boss of UK record label trade body the BPI, Geoff Taylor, has said he regrets that the music industry wasn’t quicker to embrace the opportunities offered by the internet and the arrival of music distribution services like Napster more or less exactly ten years ago; but argues that those who say the record industry would definitely have been better off had they only collaborated with the first big P2P platform ignore the major hurdles that would have had to be crossed to enable such a collaboration.
Writing a piece for the BBC on the tenth anniversary of the original Napster, Taylor says: “Many critics have argued that the music industry could have avoided some of the problems it faces today if we had embraced Napster rather than fighting it. That’s probably true, and I, for one, regret that we weren’t faster in figuring out how to create a sustainable model for music on the internet. But this view also overlooks the formidable hurdles we faced in 1999”.
Hurdles Taylor references include the simple bureaucratic headache of licensing millions of copyrights, many of which were owned by different people, or subject to different contracts or laws, in different territories, not the mention the (still not really solved) challenge of how to track P2P distribution and share revenues between labels, publishers, artists and songwriters. DRM, he says, was still considered a priority for record labels at the time, and that too presented all sorts of challenges that made simply doing a deal with Napster tricky, even if there had been a will to do such a deal.
He continued: “In 1999 Napster developed a great digital service, but did so at the expense of music, while the music business protected music at the expense of progressing online digital services. [Napster founder] Shawn Fanning and his P2P followers didn’t worry about any of those things, and weren’t prepared to pay fair royalties or to partner in a business model that could sustain investment in new music. Ten years on, it’s interesting watching other creative sectors struggling with similar issues. In the meantime, the record industry has gone through a transformation”.
Taylor observes how ten years on the record industry is slowly catching up, offering all sorts of compelling, engaging and affordable digital music services, from a la carte download stores like iTunes and Amazon MP3, to subscription based services like Nokia Comes With Music, through to ad-funded free streaming platforms like Spotify and We7.
But, he adds, rogue P2P services like the original Napster are still out there, and they don’t have the excuse used by Fanning et al that digital music fans have to use unlicensed platforms because no legit services exist. Lots of legit services exist, he argues, and the rogue P2P and other BitTorrent supporting services are making it harder for those services to succeed by offering illegal free alternatives.
He continues: “It is true that some people use P2P for music discovery and spend more on music as a result, but in the aggregate they are heavily outweighed by the number of people whose downloading substitutes for purchases. If the reverse were true, our business would be booming and not contracting right now. There is simply no getting around the fact that billions of illegal free downloads of music every year in the UK mean that significantly less money is coming into the music ecosystem. Music companies invest more money into [research and development (ie new talent)] than any other similar business – over 20% of revenue. But illegal downloading means that artists are not getting paid for their work, and there is a direct knock-on effect on the number of new bands that music companies can sign and support”.
Taylor’s conclusion is, of course, obvious – this, he says, is why people, and especially politicians, should support the campaign by the record industry, and an increasing number of other content sectors, to crack down on file-sharing, which in the BPI’s eye basically means forcing the internet service providers to play a more proactive role in tackling those naughty file-sharers.
The opinion piece is, in my humble opinion, a little unfair on Napster, who never set out to destroy the basic concepts of copyright (as opposed, say, to The Pirate Bay), and who were actively partnering with BMG to find a legit model before BMG’s competitors sued the P2P firm out of business. Something which the idiots running EMI, Universal, Sony and Warner at the time genuinely believed was going to be the solution to the P2P problem; in awe, as they were, of their smart suited but ageing lawyers, and such was their contempt for the scruffy kids who were busy developing the next P2P innovation before the majors’ had even printed out their Napster cease and desist.
And had a slightly less scruffy (but still not lawyer-style suited) tech man called Steve Jobs not stepped in four years later, there’s every chance said idiots would have been relying on the advice of said lawyers to this day, as their industry disappeared down a plug hole. But hey, that’s all ancient history, and Taylor’s thoughts on the current P2P issue are definitely worth a read.
You can read his full article here.
