Tuesday, September 29, 2009

UK Music sharpens its points

A while back, when UK Music was being berated for suggesting that people be thrown off the internet for filesharing, Feargal Sharkey denied that anyone was saying any such thing.

Now UK Music are, erm, saying that people should be thrown off the internet for filesharing. PaidContent reports:

In its submission to the business minister’s recent consultation on his new suggestions, seen by paidContent:UK, UK Music - representing labels group BPI, AIM, BASCA, MPA, MU, PPL and PRS for Music - supports adding suspension to a list of “technical measures” which Ofcom would direct ISPs to carry out after transgressors receive warnings about their habits.

So... that meeting last week when musicians decided they'd rather support throttling than suspension? Seems to have been totally ignored. But it's not like the people who make music have anything to do with managing copyrights, is it?
UK Music is also supporting Mandelson’s proposal that Ofcom should investigate how to implement these “technical measures” (which would also include bandwidth throttling) now, rather than wait to see if a system of warning letters reduces piracy by 70 percent, as Stephen Carter’s Digital Britain paper had proposed.

Yes, dammit. Let's just rush those proposals through as a package. After all, it's easier to get people to swallow a 'something must be done' proposal, even if it contains something potentially illegal and undemocratic - if the idea of throwing families off the web because of something someone may have done had to fight for acceptance on its own, the stench of people burning their Undertones records would become a danger to public health.

There's still no proposal of anything that might make this sound a little less like Victorian factory owners arbitrarily handing out punishments, though: no suggestion, for example, that there should be anything even approaching due process before these actions are put in place.

Astonishingly, UK Music also seem quite muddy about what sort of process they want at all:
UK Music says a “limitation on the volume of notifications” is not “advisable” since “the number of notices generated by rights holders will inevitably be limited ... given the costs involved in identifying infringers and presenting evidence”. The group wants an “escalation in tone” of warning letters.

Splendid - in other words, the record labels will be able to not only act as judge and jury, but also to make up the rules.


2 comments:

Simon said...

Did you see that they used Andy Falkous' FOTL Myspace blog about their album leaking in a full page Grauniad advert? With permission, too, even though it's clearly about the album being leaked so early rather than the act of filesharing itself.

Simon Hayes Budgen said...

It was a bit of an odd choice - in the course of he said "well, we won't make money playing live because only 15 people came to see us in Camden" to which the response has to be "if you can't get more than a handful of people to come and see you in the centre of London, your long-term prospects might be a bit sketchy with or without file-sharing. Unless the live concert had been stolen in some way across the internet for free?

Post a Comment

As a general rule, posts will only be deleted if they reek of spam.