Tory-Lib Dems tell copyright industry to pay costs of pursuing unlicensed files

Ah, if only David Geffen had thought to invite a couple of Lib Dems onto his yacht, maybe things would have been different. The coalition have told the copyright industries they'll have to bear most of the costs for pursuing unlicensed filesharers.

ISPs will only be made to pay the costs of notifying their customers; 75% of the bill will be passed to the people who care about the copyright.

However, the government's decision today, based on a consultation on the cost-sharing proposal, said that the argument to split detection costs had been rejected as a "business as usual" bill for copyright holders.

"This argument was rejected as the initial proposal to share costs 75/25 was made in the full knowledge that copyright owners did have these separate costs to bear," said the government. "At the level of the individual copyright owner the level of detection activity (and any legal action) is a matter for them. It was considered these were largely 'business as usual' costs that copyright owners would face as part of protecting their own copyright material."

In a related decision, citizens won't be forced to pay a fee to appeal against one of these proceedings:

"As a free system risks the possibility of large numbers of unnecessary appeals, the government will monitor the situation closely, and reserves the right to introduce a small fee at a later stage," the government added.

This puts me in a horrible position of thinking that the coalition have made a good decision. Better if they'd scrapped the whole idea of snooping and letters, but it's a start.

You can tell its a good decision, because the copyright industry is squealing about how it's soooooo unfair:

"We continue to believe that ISPs should bear a greater proportion of the costs of communicating with their customers about illegal peer-to-peer use on their networks," said a spokesman for the British Recorded Music Industry (BPI), which represents the UK's music companies.

"We will work closely with the government and Ofcom to ensure that the costs framework overall is workable and affordable, in particular for small labels, and that the Code can be swiftly implemented."

Won't it cost what it costs?

Tuning into Ed Vaizey's vision of the future

Just had time to catch up on Ed Vaizey's digital radio switchover speech in full, which is a little bemusing.

First is that he works from the assumption that the future of digital radio must be DAB. Indeed, Vaizey only gives a few lines to the possibility that there's more than one way to get radio stations digitally to people's ears, and that is to sniff that the internet won't work:

First, radio’s digital future will not be delivered by the internet alone; at least not in the immediate future. There would be massive implications for capacity and energy use if all listeners listened to the radio on the internet.

Instead we believe radio’s future is a mixed ecology, with DAB, which is mobile, free at the point of access and cost efficient providing the ‘spine’ of the digital radio offering and the internet providing the added value. We have already seen a trend towards the integration of internet and DAB in radio receivers. We welcome this not least because it allows the listener to decide which platform best suits them.

This isn't very convincing - yes, there would be energy and capacity implications if people listened entirely to internet delivered online (along, as Vaizey fails to mention, with the 'how do you get it to people when they're on the A303' question.) But that doesn't mean it's a non-starter.

After all, there's energy and capacity questions about doing anything online.

And the integration of IP and DAB radios is a bit of a red herring - I nearly bought one of those myself, but went instead for a much cheaper IP/FM device. On the basis that why would I pay extra for a device which offered me no extra stations for the extra cost?

And what does Vaizey mean about the 'added value' services being on the internet? Is that an implication that the DAB stations add no value to British radio? Surely not? But if the added-value stuff is on the internet, why would people be listening to DAB - especially if they've bought a radio that can receive both?

"Rather than listen to the internet station which is really good, I'll tune into the DAB one that's a bit like it."

And where does Vaizey see these 'added value' propositions coming from - later on, when he's rubbishing the idea of dumping DAB for the more-station-for-your-bandwidth DAB+ standard, he makes this observation:

The benefits of DAB+ are primarily a more effective use of spectrum, but DAB already offers significant capacity for new services and there are only so many which the market can sustain.

So there are a load of added value services which will appear online, to be delivered in a way which burns energy and consumes bandwidth - but if you think it might be better to adopt DAB+ to distribute these extra services, suddenly they become too much for the market to stand.

Perhaps Ed should have held off making his speech about radio until he'd had a chance to think about his position for longer than the length of a Heart FM news bulletin.

The lack of coherence shines out of the key detail of the speech, too. The idea of digital switch-over:

On this point I should be clear. We agree that 2015 is an appropriate target date; a point at which all parts of the supply-chain can focus on. If, and it is a big if, the consumer is ready we will support a 2015 switchover date.

Vaizey seems to have decided that DAB makes sense, and that migration from FM to DAB is the policy. He wants everyone working towards 2015 as the moment when that will happen. That is a clear, coherent position.

Only:

We will only consider implementing a Digital Radio Switchover once at least 50% of all listening is already on digital, or to put it another way when analogue listening is in the minority.

At the same time he insists he won't switch off FM while it's still the main way people listen to radio.

So why, exactly, does he think people will choose to swap from FM to DAB without the push of the possibility that buying an FM radio now is a way to purchase an expensive future paperweight?

"We'll switch off the FM network at some point in the future, but not until everyone gets round to not using FM anyway" isn't really a policy, it's just an observation.

The long fade-out: Mark Thompson proposes slow, slow death of 6Music

So, it's official: Mark Thompson is going round to 6Music and the Asian Network and asking them to turn the music off. Not straight away, though:

During the briefing Mr Thompson said the earliest 6 Music and Asian Network would close would be by the end of 2011.

It was reported on Friday that the two digital stations would be closed, after the report was leaked to The Times.

That's quite a clunky phrase - tomorrow, strictly speaking, is "by the end of 2011", but it seems to suggest we've got at least 150 more Marc Riley sessions to go before anything gets switched off. Which is something.

Meanwhile, the Tories - never having seen a bandwagon they don't want to clamber onto - have seen that 6Music is popular with hard-to-reach voters and performed another one of their pretty pirouettes.

On Friday, Shadow 'Culture' Minister Ed Vaizey was delighted at the news of the BBC cutting back:

Vaizey said the Conservatives wanted "a smaller BBC", but did not want "to beat up the BBC". He added that proposals to close digital stations 6 Music and the Asian Network and cut back the BBC website, reported in today's Times, were "intelligent and sensible".

Intelligent and sensible.

By yesterday lunchtime, though, Ed Vaizey had noticed that there might be votes in this:

MediaGuardian.co.uk can reveal that when challenged by an angry fans of the station, he admitted he had not heard the station before but claimed he had become an avid fan over the weekend. This was part of a public backlash over the closure of 6 Music, which included tens of thousands of supporters protesting via Twitter and Facebook.

"Having not listened to 6 Music, I took it on trust that the BBC knew what it was doing in this regard," said Vaizey in response to an email sent by a member of the public who took him to task over his support for the package of cuts.

"Several things have happened since I spoke out. I had no strong views on 6 Music on Friday, I now know it is brilliant with a passionate and articulate fan base – I am now an avid listener to 6 Music. I suspect that 6 Music has doubled its audience. I strongly suspect 6 Music will be saved."

Let's just pause awhile: the man who - in all possibility - may be in charge of the UK Government's cultural policy was running round on Friday applauding decisions to close radio stations he not only had not listened to, but knew nothing about.

The Save 6Music campaign might not save the network, but it's really exposed how rubbish the Tories' arts and culture team are.

The plans to cut back the size of the BBC operations, you'll recall, have been constructed with an eye and a half on the possibility of a Tory gorvernment, and Vaizey's repeated calls for the BBC to do less. So, having got us into the mess in the first place, and then celebrated the mess, now Vaizey's having second thoughts.

Ed Vaizey suggests Hotel Babylon is the way ahead

Also tucked into Ed Vaizey's proposals for what media might look like under a Tory DCMS was the suggestion that rules on product placement be relaxed for commercial television. Rubbing his hands together, he suggests that this might bring millions of pounds flowing in to ITV and its brethren.

Well, yes - although since that money is going to come from somewhere, it might just mean a shift from traditional advertising and sponsorship to product placement, meaning a sacrifice of editorial independence for no actual financial gain.

And the early experiences of what happens when companies gain too much control of the editorial - or think they should - are well-known. Perhaps Ed Vaizey needs to reacquaint himself with the Hotel Babylon disaster of 1996.

This was a 1996 series made by Bob Geldof's Planet 24 for late-night ITV. It was sponsored by Heineken, but they weren't entirely happy with the first programme:

Justus Kos, from Heineken's sponsorship department at its head office in Amsterdam, faxed Planet 24 demanding more "Heineken- ising" of the show. "More evidence of beer is not just requested but needed."

Part of the problem, it seemed, was not just the lack of enough beer in the programme, but the fleshy presence of the presenter blocking views of the Heineken logos and - heaven forbid - men in the audience drinking wine.

I mean, wine. Can you imagine?

If that was bad, though, worse was to come in the fax:

"The audience should be aspirational but not too much on the edge. There was a too high proportion of negroes. Although the audience group seems to be a mixture, director and/or camera crew have a tendency towards selecting just extravagant people. Also 'normal' people should be filmed."

Too high a proportion of negroes?

Yes. He did.

Bob Geldof told the The Independent of his response:

Sir Bob Geldof, a founder and still major shareholder in Planet 24, yesterday said Heineken could "go fuck themselves" as far as he was concerned. "I heard about the infamous fax and I hooted with derision. It is our programme, not Heineken's."

I'm not sure that "hooting with derision" when being told there are too many black people in your audience is quite the reaction you'd hope for. Trouble is, of course, that the programme actually was Heinekens, what with it having been bought and paid for, and designed around their branding. To paraphrase Churchill, the nature of the relationship had already been decided, Kos was merely haggling.

After the fax complaining about black faces was made public, Heineken swung into brand-salvage mode:

Last night Karel Vuursteen, chief executive of Heineken worldwide, reacted to the fax with dismay. Replying to Mr Grant, he said: "Having read the original, only one thing can be said about it: it should never have been written. I am truly shocked about the content of the paragraph you refer to, since it is totally against everything Heineken stands for. Heineken denounces all discrimination and will live up to that. I hope you can accept my sincere apology and I can assure you that proper steps will be taken to prevent recurrence."

And, to be sure, nothing like that has ever been put into writing since.

A sorry tale, then, and a warning from history about what happens when you let corporations think they can buy editorial placement. Not the model a serious politician would be suggesting for the future, surely?

Tories can't tell Radio 1 from Capital, plot sell-off

You have to feel a bit sorry for Radio 1, don't you? Because the Conservatives don't really like the BBC, but don't really want to be seen trying to take down BBC News, it's always Radio 1 they go for.

Ed Vaizey, shadow minister for whatever would be left of the culture, media and sports has floated an impressively confused and spiteful policy in The Sunday Times:

Vaizey also believes the station is failing to reach young listeners. “Radio 1 is not fulfilling its obligation to its audience,” he said. “Its median age is those in their thirties when it should aim much more at teenagers and [those in] their twenties. There is then a good argument for the BBC to be rid of Radio 1 and give the commercial sector a chance to use the frequency.”

It's not fulfilling its audience remit, so let's sell it off. Rather than ask it to better perform its remit.

There's an argument that simply because the median age of the audience is outside the target, that doesn't mean that it's not serving its target.

Imagine, for example, a town with 100 dogs and 400 cats, and it's a town where you want to ensure as many of the dogs in town get flea protection. To do this, you offer free flea treatment for all pets. A quarter of the cat owners turn up, and half the dog owners show up too. You're doing quite well at reaching dogs, but statistically, you look like you're doing better at treating cats.

This might explain Radio 1's middle-aged bias; it might not. I don't know, and I'm prepared to bet Vaizey hasn't got a clue, either.

Also, it could be that the more intelligent response is to ask if trying to segment audiences by age alone actually makes that much sense any more. A service aimed at "teenagers and those in their twenties" seems a bit of a strange way to describe Radio 1 anyway - isn't it the nation's pop and rock station? Do 17 year old kids flicking through UCAS offerings and 29 year-olds celebrating their children getting into good primary schools really have common ground in the way Vaizey seems to believe they do?

And if there is such an audience, who are being ill-served by the BBC, how does flogging off the frequency to a commercial entity actually address the problem?

"Hey, guys - the coat factory that is supposed to make coats for you isn't delivering the coats. But don't worry, we're going to close the factory down, so nobody will have coats. Vote for me!"

Even more surprising is that Vaizey's thinking is that the BBC has too many FM frequencies:

He said the corporation was even more dominant than its commercial rivals in radio compared with television, pointing to the fact that it held four out of five national FM licences. The only exception is Classic FM.

“There is an unfair disparity,” said Vaizey in an interview with The Sunday Times. The sale of Radio 1 would help to alleviate the imbalance. Industry experts believe the station’s frequency could be worth at least £100m.

Leaving aside the question of if the new Bauer and Global 'local' networks don't quite count as national networks, are the Tories really thinking that British broadcasting policy in the 2010s is best shaped by worrying about if Virgin can broadcast of FM? Good lord, man, you're going to be shaping the way the media works for decades to come, and your proposal to the lack of adverts on FM is to propose closing down one of the BBC stations, rather than finding a way to fund getting a national spread of internet-distributed stations into cars?

This, then, is what the Tories look like: they've gone to hear Jesus speak, and have helped collect the food. Looking at the bread and fishes, they're ignoring Jesus' offer to do a bit of miracle work and make it stretch, and instead are drawing up plans to hold an auction for the few pilchard sandwiches they can make.

Or possibly some Tories. It looks like this is one flag being run up a pole only to discover the rats deserting Vaizey's sinking ship:

Although Vaizey is shadow minister responsible for broadcasting, a Tory spokesman said last night that the sale of Radio 1 was not party policy.

Let's hope they leave it that way.

Ed Vaizey: Never mind the words, listen to the tune

David Cameron, you'll recall, claims to have been a big fan of The Smiths. Nobody ever did get to the bottom of how he so enjoyed songs apparently at total odds with his worldview.

Now, shadow arts minister Ed Vaizey turns out to be a big fan of The Specials. The Guardian reports:

his pop tastes are rooted in the late 1970s and early 80s (he is a fan of the Specials).

A big fan of The Specials? And yet, also, a big fan of Thatcher:

What does Vaizey make of Thatcher's record on the arts? "She believed in greater involvement of private ­donors," he says. "And if you have frank conversations [behind] closed doors, a lot of people in arts organisations will say that a lot of what Thatcher did was actually quite good, in making them go out to the marketplace and raise money."

Who would those people be, exactly? Presumably the ones whose jobs are in the corporate sponsorship, which is a bit like people who make stab vests saying that knife crime isn't all bad.

Still: The Specials and Thatcher. How can you extract value from both?