I don't think i have read a more ill informed article than Paul McGuinness' attack on ISPs and downloaders.

Why should Yahoo and AOL be prosecuted ? Should we now sue BT for phone crime ? It is a nonsense.

The big problem came from the ineptitude of the music industry suits mainly the old men who were so set in their ways that they could not see the wood for the trees. Napster could have been turned into a proper legal service that would have united fans and labels but oh no they couldn't see it this way. P2p has morphed into a less traceable beast and will morph into a completely invisible beast which no doubt the suits will laud as successful, the campaign that 'shut down' file sharing networks, while the whole world will laugh at their ignorance knowing full well that nothing has changed.

One of the principles of capitalism is the law of supply and demand. The public demanded free internet music like free TV and free radio. Someone will supply it. Morals do not come into it. if we are going to talk of morals how about stop endorsing drugs and illegal activities but oh that will stop creativity right ?

Labels need to provide an alternative, stop being greedy and engage their customers. Also if you want to turn off the internet for repeat downloaders you've missed the moral argument. If downloading is morally wrong, it is wrong for ALL. Not for a few, but for ALL. Why should ISPs cut off their own income ? What about suing Gootube ? How about suing Bill Gates, Sony, Phillips ? Take action against all offenders and stop cherry picking. Not a possible feat at all is it.

The real tragedy is that there could have been a viable option out there. What we need to recognise is that we are in a fragmented world now and what customers need is choice. The idiocy of having iTunes UK sell a track that iTunes US can't sell is staggering.

More often than not the industry frustrates those of us who want to buy music online. The fact of the matter is downloads are over-priced.

Let's just look at a single with a retail price of 1.99 with 4 track. That comes to 50p a track for a full wav quality audio. We now have a situation where a music product with 1/10 of the sound quality costs more.

The public are not fooled, they are not stupid. They know that what they are getting is worse than the CD and deep down we know that we are 'scamming' our fans with this pricing model.

We have to clean up our own act before pointing the 'moral' finger at fans. Music fans know what's going down. Also this hypocrisy over file sharing music is unbelievable.

We have ALL shared music. From taping it for your friends to sending an email. We have all done it. Saint Bono has done it, Angel Geldof has done it.

Let he who is without this sin cast the first stone.

This is not to say that I am for freeloaders and filesharers. No far from it. I believe we must be realists and understand that everyone on earth is both a file sharer and a buyer of music. The answer is to find a way to monetise file sharing and the spreading of music.

Where is the MUSIC Industy's collective file-sharing, radio playlist service ?

I was talking to a film director yesterday, and he asked how the music biz is going these and what we're doing to stop piracy (that's the way he put it). I mentioned there was increasing talks about asking ISPs to share some of the money they are making off the back of content (that now includes movies). There have been levies on CDs and recording material for years already in France and elsewhere, for example. So why not ISPs? I also mentioned the oft-repeated comment that "I don't download music, so why should I pay more for my Internet access?" He laughed at that one and said it's the same logic as people saying, "I don't drive my car at night, why should I pay taxes that go towards street lights?" Or even, "I don't travel to Manchester, why should I be paying for the motorway?"

There should be a compromise between the ISPs and the entertainment industry.

They will never stop p2p sites, nor will they stop people from frequenting them. But for God's sake create an alternative and drain the swamp.

To be fair, we are moving in the right direction with Imeem, We7 (yes i know many on here don't like them) but why can't the music industry set up an all you can eat or even a 'limited meal' subscription service and negotiate content deals with ISPs ? Then we shall have real choices.

After all it works for mobile phones.

Michael wrote:
...said it's the same logic as people saying, "I don't drive my car at night, why should I pay taxes that go towards street lights?" Or even, "I don't travel to Manchester, why should I be paying for the motorway?"
That's a really poor analogy - should there be an increase in fuel duty to fund the Police because criminals use the roads?

Analogies can only go so far, and besides it's not my analogy.

What he was saying is that there are times when you can't opt out of collective decisions. "I don't drive to Manchester so why should I fund a road there?" is not a valid argument, for example.

If we recognise that the traffic of ISPs is causing huge damage to the various music industries, and that said ISPs are making huge profits notably by advertising faster broadband for the purposes of downloading (which I think is the case McGuinness was making), I think we have a case for addressing the ISPs. The damage is not just at the back-end, ie lost sales, it is also affecting the ability of the industry to develop new acts to a sustainable level. We've been saying as much for over two years here.

It's not really that difficult to determine what proportion of an ISP's traffic is music or film. It's not too difficult either to match that traffic against paid-for downloads and subscriptions and hey presto: we have a good ballpark figure for determining the value of "sharing" that is going on.

As I've said elsewhere, I pay authors rights on my cable subscription. It's not such a jump to consider one for ISPs. Whether they pass that on to their customers or not will depend on the competitive environment.

Some countries are actively considering it. I wouldn't sit around waiting for it. And the business still has a lot of work to do in connecting with valid customers and dealing with quality control (dud albums). But the idea of a levy is worth considering.

Just a thought!

Michael wrote:
Analogies can only go so far, and besides it's not my analogy.

What he was saying is that there are times when you can't opt out of collective decisions. "I don't drive to Manchester so why should I fund a road there?" is not a valid argument, for example.

What I'm saying is that collective punishment because of the behaviour of a few is unreasonable.

I'm sure the ISP would say the increased bandwidth is for legitimate downloads, why should their customers pay twice for legitimate downloads and those who don't download music pay more because someone else is?

The ISP are certainly not offering illegal downloads.

If they are to be held to account should whoever built the motorway be held to account for a criminal using the motorway?

You are right "I don't drive to Manchester" is not a valid argument but "I shouldn't be punished for a crime I didn't commit" is a valid argument.

If there is to be a copyright levy on ISP why not one for photocopier, printer and camera manufactures - in fact why not tax the entire population to give all copyright holders a annual lump sum just-in-case.

The ISP aren't causing the "damage" it's the people who steal, just because it's awkward to track them down does not mean it's OK to go for whoever is convenient.

...the few that are downloading... I'm glad to hear that. Here was me thinking the industry was crumbling due to the vast numbers of people using Limewire etc. I must be wrong! As well as that nice chap from the technology company that showed me how many users were sharing tracks of mine in real time.

I remember covering the issue of levies on blank CDs when I still had a cassette player. All the research showed that over 80% of the CDs were being used to copy music specifically. What's more, the same research showed that people didn't think a levy was unfair, despite complaints from an association for the blind. I think maybe that it's time to do some more research to quantify what we're talking about.

I'm not sure why there is so much resistance to the idea of a levy. It's unfair? How fair is P2P? One might cost a few pennies a month, the other is causing irreparable damage to the entertainment industries upon even which the ISPs are building their business. Go check the homepages of the ISPs. Entertainment features prominently everywhere. They need us. And for the moment, they need us more than we need them as the Internet is currently more of a financial drain on music than anything else. Besides, TV still gives better exposure - and it pays authors rights. If you think the UK film industry is in bad shape now, wait until sharing kicks in for movie downloads as well.

The ISPs could turn off the sharing networks today if they wanted to. Yet they continue to give them access to the Internet, and provide punters with access to them (even promoting the idea of downloading in their advertising). As I said, we can easily determine how much of that traffic is legal or not. I'd say, let's try it. Let's talk to the ISPs. Maybe they would be willing to play ball and we can build strategic partnerships. They certainly won't if we don't ask the question.

There in no levy on blank CDs in the UK. This doesn't surprise me as it would be unjust for those not copying music.

The objection to a royalty tax is the objection to being penalised for a crime one didn't commit.

The ISP cannot "turn off" bit torrent sharing.

The ISP are not acting illegally, they are not doing anything illegal. They are an easy target, they are not the culprits.

Going for those who are breaking the law may be awkward but that cannot justify going for who ever is convenient.

You're right. Let's give up.

No actually, I think you're missing a bigger picture as gradually destroying the entertainment industries is not in the IPS's best interests either. They'd have less and less to use as a selling point to punters apart from promoting the loony attention-freaks on YouTube or abysmal DIY electronic acts. There's only so much of that you can take. And as the ISPs want to take on the TV industry for advertising revenue, they might give a sympathetic ear to what the entertainment industries have to say as they in theory have some idea how to entertain.

Unless, that is, we decide that they can go laughing to the banks while the record industry takes a perverse joy in the demise of EMI - which seems to be the dominant trend over the past few weeks. Let's kick the guy that's down rather than the one that hit him with the car. Is that where we are?

OK, I'll admit I'm pushing it a bit, but I'm surprised at the reaction McG's comments received. Why are we protecting ISPs as if they were the Virgin Mary's chastity? What have they done for us? They genuinely have built a large part of their business on the back of the entertainment industries. Why is this so hard to comprehend? I also believe they are not alone and was delighted to see YouTube and Last.fm embrace the idea of royalties.

If you don't ask, thou most certainly will not receive.

Michael, Zoo, KZ - first, thank God we still have at least four people in our industry (including Paul McG) prepared to discuss this issue.

I think it is quite similar to the old TAX BLANK TAPES discussion from way back when.

And I think it gets to the heart of the problem - should music be free for all?

I suspect the answer should be - it's up to you.
As an artiste and copyright owner myself, I've made loadsamoney from music in the past - never intended, always as a by product of my motive - having a great time and getting music to as wide an audience as possible.

Times have changed but my motives have not, so as far as I'm concerned that remains my primary reason for staying involved - get it to as many ears as possible.

Now if those involved want cash as well as satisfaction, that's fine by me and I'll do all I can to capitalise on areas where we can make money BUT - I have certain rules...

NEVER rely on anyone else (let alone "society") to protect my interests or make me money (by fining or taxing organisations, putting codes on music, collecting dues etc)... they will ALWAYS let you down, so simply expect results from what you do yourself.

TOTALLY devote yourself to making sure the music is as good as it can be and gets heard by as many as possible. Any effort elsewhere is wasted and tends to mean your music doesn't deserve attention.

I can play with sites, boards, TV shows, concepts, conventions, downloads, manufacturing and other ancillary games because I'm OLD, semi retired, no longer devoted to simply making music. But if I'd been the butterfly I am today 40 years ago, I'd never have had any hits to talk about now.

On a slight tangent... Yahoo are leaving their music subscription service

"The company's management said last fall it had begun to de-emphasize its subscription model in favor of an advertising-supported music service."

This suggest something I hadn't considered - ISP want to make money from music downloads. The illegal downloads are actually not in their own interests.

The ISP missing out on a revenue stream is more of an incentive than compelling them to pass a fraction of their income to a third party to cover royalties for no direct return.