Some seven million Brits download music illegally every year. That’s 1 in 10 admitting to copyright infringement, according to think-tank Demos. But the same study reveals illegal downloaders spend far more money buying music than their law abiding counterparts.
Illegal downloaders buy the most music
This raises difficult questions about the future of illegal downloading. Should we cut off our nose to spite our face – illegal downloaders being the nose on which the face of the music industry clearly relies. Or should we follow the old adage – if you can’t beat ‘em, join ‘em?
Music consumption has been revolutionised by the internet. People expect easy access to tracks for a near-to-nothing price.
But rather than being internet pirates, most illegal downloaders are internet explorers – they use file sharing to find new music because that’s what they love. And they love it more than anyone else.
Artists used to give concerts to sell a new record. Now they rely on the spread of their records to sell concerts.
Music bloggers find the latest releases before they come out in stores
Music bloggers rely on being able to access the latest releases before they are available in store. Indeed, singers like Shakira claim illegal downloading has increased her fan base and makes her feel closer to her followers.
No to illegal downloaders
Until now, the argument for stopping people illegally downloading music from the internet has been strong.
The BPI – British Phonographic Industry – says illegal downloads cost the music industry around £200million a year, as reported by The Independent. And those just entering the industry can be badly affected as they have little revenue to fall back on from record sales.
Other high profile artists are split over the issue. Radiohead guitarist Ed O’Brian has criticised plans to crack down on illicit file sharing, while Lily Allen, Take That’s Gary Barlow and James Blunt have expressed their anger over the issue.
Preparations are currently being put in place by Lord Mandelson to hit illegal downloaders where it hurts – a “three strikes and you’re out” ruling which would cut off the internet connection of those stepping out of line.
And 61% of illegal downloaders surveyed said they would stop if this was put into practice. So would it be a good idea?
An illegal life-line
This new revelation certainly throws a spanner in the works. Illegal downloaders each spend an average of £77 a year on music – that’s almost DOUBLE the money spent by those who never do it (Demos). Many claim government clamp downs on illegal downloaders could spell death for the troubled music industry.
A compromise must be found. Music must remain a paid-for commodity or fresh talent will dry up and the industry will suffer further.
Universal Music , the world’s largest music company, and Virgin Media will soon launch a download subscription service which allows broadband customers to stream and download as many tracks from the Universal catalogue as they want for a small fee of about £15. And Virgin is already in talks with other big industry labels to include more artists in the index.
Perhaps this is the way forward? Small fees for free range. Whatever happens, it looks as though cutting off the most prolific music consumers – illegal downloaders – is not the answer.
This is another report to add to the pile, demonstrating that file sharing is just not as simple as “stealing” and depriving the music industry of money. Whilst that may be true for some users, it certainly is not for all and certain unelected peers should refer to his advisors for policy on such matters, not just friends that he happens to go on holiday with the week before making a complete about turn.
Lord Mandelson will have a tough time getting his 3 strikes rule passed (and yes he only came up with it whilst on holiday with a certain Mr Geffen), but it goes against the principles of a fair trial and can also be described as collective punishment. It also goes directly against the views of his advisory body on the subject.
He may claim that there will be recourse for appeal for those “struck out”, but IP addresses are a notoriously poor way to obtain a persons true identity from a technical standpoint with unprotected wifi in many homes amongst other more technical reasons.
To punish an entire household for the actions of a single member is also collective punishment which isn’t a popular idea. If someone speeds and loses their license, that does not mean that other household members are also banned from driving. Such an action would cause more harm than good, and that analogy fits well here.