Mike Magee? He's a one man banned
|
|
|
Talking about Internet 'piracy'
WITH LORD PETER MANDELSON stepping off of his media mogul friend’s yacht recently and announcing his newly found dislike for the peer-to-peer file sharer, Internet “piracy” has once again become a hot topic. Admittedly fanning the flames a little, the Inquirer sat down with a few key players involved in the current state of online file sharing to discuss the industry’s future developments and, perhaps more importantly, its legal status.
The first big shot we got hold of was Gary Fung, the owner, creator and admin of isohunt.com, one of the world’s largest torrent search engines. In case you have been living under a rock for the past half-decade, torrent files link multiple users to “trackers” that allow them to connect to one another in order to download legal or illegal content. We began our discussion by asking him to lay out his and his site’s background. Initially isohunt.com began as a programming experiment way back in 2002, but with the growth of torrent usage in 2003, “it just exploded”, rapidly expanding into the industry heavyweight it is today.
Getting into the spirit of things a little, I asked him to give his thoughts on Internet piracy, for which I was immediately chastised. Fung stated “the word Piracy is a sensational word”, describing it as a word more akin to “murder and pillaging on the high seas” and that it was being misused by the entertainment industry and their lobbyists to “spread the false message that file sharing equates to stealing”, which he adamantly denies. Showing he knows what he’s talking about, I was quickly inundated with URLs to studies on growing revenue streams which seemed to show that, despite the growth of peer to peer file sharing, box office revenue had increased.
Ultimately Fung said that the “distribution of all media is being decentralised”, concluding that the reason the media corporations were kicking up such a fuss about illegal downloading is that it’s them that are losing the revenue, not the artists.
These ideals were at odds however with John Lovelock from the Federation Against Software Theft, or FAST. His organisation serves as a middle ground between the end users and the software developers, often negotiating between both parties out of court when “over licensing” occurs. When quizzed about his thoughts on “piracy”, Lovelock quoted the oft touted statistics that several hundreds of millions of pounds were “lost” each year to online file sharing, and that “in principle” at least, he was very much against it.
Expecting this response to some extent, I had pre-emptively asked Fung about his thoughts on this paradigm and he responded with another swath of studies to back up his simple and succinct answer - “Complete lies.”
This situation seems to highlight the difficulty of effectively mapping and understanding something that’s dubbed illegal, as it’s simply not monitored as legal alternatives are. Also, no one is able to say whether those who download multimedia illegally would still do so in a sanctioned fashion. Granted Fung’s study seems to suggest that money was indeed not being lost, or at least, that revenue increased despite it.
Our third interviewee attempts a different perspective still. Steve Purdham is CEO of WE7.com, a service similar to the equally-popular Spotify that acts as a “giant jukebox”. It hosts an extensive library of music, allowing people to “search, click and instantly play full songs or albums for free". He acknowledged the arguments of both parties, but said that most people don’t “steal” music, or at least don’t “believe they are stealing music, they’re just listening to it". This is the argument that has plagued this situation from the beginning - is listening stealing?
While he felt he had already pretty much answered this question, when I asked Fung what he thought of the old stealing paradigm, he countered that when something is stolen, something has to have been lost by the “victim". Since his studies showed that “there’s no evidence of harm to the industry’s revenues” and that as they had in fact gone up, despite the growth of peer to peer technology, “it bursts any notion that file sharing is stealing".
However the point he followed it up with was an interesting one. He described that torrents and other forms of file sharing had become the “new radio”, a simple “promotional channel and a way to connect with fans". While radio stations may pay a premium for certain music, the audience ultimately pays nothing to listen to the station’s tracks, so the concept of free listening - at least at a consumer level - is not a new one. Perhaps though it’s time for a new outlet. Purdham evidently agrees believing that, “focus should be on the future” and that “the Internet has changed the basis of music consumption,” and that we “need to reflect that in the economic models".
Purdham continued by saying that while services like WE7 were one way of doing things, there’s no reason that others shouldn’t be created, offering different ways for people to pay for and enjoy their media. He believes that the “future has to allow access to media, stream or download, and give the consumer the choice how to pay, free, subscription or buy".
Surprisingly to some extent, this sentiment was echoed by Lovelock, who said that he believed subscription models like Spotify and pay-per-download services like Itunes were great. From his standpoint, he believed that “virtualised software” was very much the way forward, with “pay per use models” paving the way to the future.
It’s an interesting conclusion that organisations like FAST, sites like Isohunt and WE7, all seem to be moving forward with new alternatives to traditional distribution methods, despite their occasionally conflicting ideals. However, while they might have the future in their hands, the present is quickly becoming a situation that file sharers should be wary of. Calls for ISP cut offs, and the fining methods pioneered in the states are making their way over to Blighty with surprising speed; the witch hunt is on.
Fung describes the methods as “particularly alarming” in that the lobbyists and lawmakers would go so far as to “vilify file sharing, at the cost of fundamental freedoms in use of the Internet". Keeping up with his linking behaviour, Fung pointed me to an interesting read that the homeless value the Internet almost as much as food and shelter. When asked about his opinions on cut offs and letters in the mail, Lovelock from FAST said that, “the law is very strict with IP theft” and that despite his support for the mail method he believed that "only the hardcore criminal element need to be criminalised”. This suggests his distaste for the fining procedure adopted by our Western cousins across the pond, especially as “70 percent of [sharers] would probably stop, according to surveys” on receiving a warning letter.
It seems, ultimately, that everyone is on the same page, apart from the politicians and top end media moguls. No one agrees that downloading media illegally is the way forward, with even Isohunt’s Fung saying that he “respects copyright law” and complies with takedowns “whenever a copyright owner requests it”. Each of their plans for subscription models with more easily downloadable or streaming media seem to sit pretty evenly with one another. Purdham is planning to expand WE7 with new pricing models and an even wider variety of music, hoping to increase the company’s exposure among artists and the public, while FAST is evidently looking to move more towards virtualisation of software, undoubtedly allowing those who can’t afford the more expensive applications to have access to them for periods of time based on their usage needs.
Fung however is going a different route; in a similar vein with something he calls “Hexagon". This is a tool that works in a similar manner “to how brands use Facebook pages to connect with consumers as fans”, but takes it a step further with more discrete “groups”. Each one found within the Hexagon system works effectively as their own site, in which members “post their own videos, torrents and discussions” which should organise “the typical chaos in everything being shared” as while offering membership, groups can also be selective. Fung also plans to soon implement a pay-what-you-want scheme in what he hopes will “reconcile the difference between unrestrained sharing and sharing promoted by content creators". This was shown by bands like Radiohead to work very well indeed, with some fans even paying more than the normal price tag when given the choice.
The current state of file sharing is a precarious one. It’s something that vast numbers take part in, knowingly or not so. Youtube, for example, is a prime location for the uninitiated to break current copyright laws. That said, however uncertain the present is it seems that the future is definitely a bright one and as long as those that partake in nefarious acquisitions of hit movies and music keep their heads down and media corporations don’t turn them into the soft drug users of the 21st century, file sharing platforms that suit both parties aren’t that far away. If we all just wait a little longer, they will have their chance to become the dominant media distribution platforms of the years to come. µ
Share this:
Share
Years later I still don't get how we even allow music companies to complain about piracy let alone set attack people over it.
How many anti-piracy folks remember not that long ago that all the record companies in the U.S. were found guilty of price fixing CD's/Cassettes. While they could only prove price fixing for a 5 year period there were numerous documents showing it was on going for nearly 2 decades. Both parties agreed in court the price fixing identified would bring in $100 of Billions in extra revenue over that time period. In the end they weaseled out agreeing to pay a settlement of up to $150 million if citizens filed a special application in a 45 day window to get one time $20.
To me end all be all, the media companies out there are admitted criminals that have and continue to steal more money from the consumers then we would ever be able to take back in file sharing. Hell even all the major software companies today say their high prices are simply a reflection of lost revenues through piracy, but if there were no piracy would their prices be a penny lower of course not; so, Why should I care that I download 1/5 of my music or movies for free. If I pay for 80% of it, I'm still the one getting robbed. Until I start to see those companies CEO's in orange jumpsuits then I'll consider my P2P downloads as paid for in full.
"BTW, CyJambo, Peerguardian's never worked." It worked for me all right. It would for you too, if you had actually used it. All your funny titles have no weight. And what's this "strong evidence" you are talking about?
Well, as far as I know there is nothing wrong with PeerGuardian or Moblock. Can anyone confirm Andrew Norton :
"BTW, CyJambo, Peerguardian's never worked. It's based on a flawed premise that was known to be broken 10 years ago. There's strong evidence that the main list provider, bluetack, is actually part of an Anti-P2P company anyway, and that the lists steer you towards their logging bots (not like it can block them, since they can't be detected)"
I've read the following on a thread:
"Sorry the previous thread for this was closed, but I came across this statement in todays press. Is the true?
Never heard of the guy. Bluetack on the other hand has built a solid reputation along the years.
It's true that the approach used by PeerGuardian may not always work as it relies on blacklisting IPs."
and
"I agree. Bluetack have good reputation. I see the last time that many advice to use Peerblock as http://www.peerblock.com/ which is a fork of PeerGuardian."
I would like to see expert opinions :)
Thx!
Can someone please start publishing this startling fact, and let Peter Mandelson know it also. HMV don't sell CD singles any more.
I tried to buy the Miley Cyrus song "The Climb" for my niece on CD single. I couldn't find it so I asked a worker. He told me they don't sell singles any more.
How can downloading a single from a p2p be theft when it's not even sold in the shop in the first place?
OT: - Do you think the X-Factor version of "The Climb" is better or worse than Miley Cyrus's version? I think XF's is worse.
Well, we understand now why the FACT is at odds with the majority of people, when they talk about IP theft. Internet users do not now, nor have they ever stolen this nebulous "IP" (I presume he means copyrights, patents and trademarks - which are actually 3 very different things, and none of them property). The same can't be said of those he, and indeed Mandelson, champions. Just ask Edwyn Collins, who had his copyright stolen (in the legal sense, rather than the hyperbolic sense most use it) by Warner - stolen as in he has been deprived of his rights.
I've been looking at box office revenues for almost 2 years now, going through data, and I've found almost no impact on the US box office by P2P. Similarly, I have found that UK music sales have increased over the past handful of years; more digital singles were sold in 2008 than physical singles were sold in the 90s, and there's still a few million physical singles sold that year.
There is but one question. If there are all these losses, as claimed by countless industry studies, why can't they provide the data that the studies use with it. That way we can see the raw impact ourselves, and they avoid any embarresments like finding out a figure is vastly inflated (as the MPAA did 2 years ago)
BTW, CyJambo, Peerguardian's never worked. It's based on a flawed premise that was known to be broken 10 years ago. There's strong evidence that the main list provider, bluetack, is actually part of an Anti-P2P company anyway, and that the lists steer you towards their logging bots (not like it can block them, since they can't be detected)
Andrew Norton
P2P Researcher
Former chairman, PPUS & PPI
http://ktetch.wordpress.com
As always the discussion is about the people up the top of the chain - those that already have or have had a major distribution deal like Radiohead. These people have had years of investment from mainstream publishers and so of course their names are well known. When they switch to selling direct they do well - years of expensive building of goodwill pay off.
The issue is the small artists - the little band or game company that try to put their stuff up for a bit of PayPal. They get nowhere because the expectation that it all should be free stifles them from ever gaining a foothold. It's expected that they should give everything away - but that's an economic burden placed on them just as surely as the complaint about having to buy albums you might not like.
In these discussions I would really like to see analysis below the market leaders. No more Radiohead and NIN. I really don't think they are the rule.
All the people I know download illegally but they also buy DVD's and CD's, often 2 copies to give as presents, so I believe it's true that the thing works as radio in that it creates a buzz and interest and it doesn't actually lead to a net loss.
And it's obviously complete and utter bollocks to suggest that everything you download to try you'd still get and pay money for if you could not download it, even the people that spout that nonsense know full well it is nonsense, which again shows that the politicians that go around pretending that those numbers are legit are complete frauds and would sell their mothers into slavery for some wealth and power.
Use this little software called PeerGuardian ( http://phoenixlabs.org/pg2/ ). It should give you some privacy...
And of course I believe that anybody should be able to download and listen to music for free and THEN decide if he/she will buy that CD or not.
There is nothing the Greedy bastards can do about it. If not torrent, another form will come along. Like there was napster before torrent and DC++ and so on...
Peace!
CyJambo
Live without music? Seems like an oxymoron to me.
I don't listen to music and watch films to blindly follow other peoples opinions but I'm certainly not arrogant enough to think that only my opinion is 100% right all the time.
Also the fact that you're here reading this techsite show that you aren't immune to the opinions of others.
the best thing you can do to oppose this dictatorship action is to not buy any music or movies - just live without it.
you will have a better life, free of pointless external influences and disinformation where you can be yourself and have your own opinions, not those of other people
Interesting that almost nobody comments on price. When DVDs of films are given away by newspapers, CDs of music by the music press and a mainstream CD is < £8.00 in Tescos, the whole idea of charging $1 for a single mp3/mp4 track looks like price gouging. I firmly believe there is a price that competes wiith free for an easily found, easily downloaded, well-tagged, well ripped MP3 and it's about what AllOfMp3 used to charge, ie $0.1 to $0.2 per track and $1 to $2.50 for an album.
So maybe the real problem here is that we have a duopoly of iTMS and Amazon with effective price fixing led by unreasonable wholesale pricing. And what needs to happen is for the record companies to cooperate with a new 3rd party to offer exactly what AllOfMp3 used to. A BIG (as in all recorded audio) library of music available for download at a reasonable cost.
dark lord mandelson is fighting the cause of the rich
these industries thrive on extracting maximum cash from the public to funnel it into a handful of fat exec's retirement/gold yacht/bugatti veyron fuel/mansion/etc funds
filesharing has reduced their profits so they have to get governments to threaten their public with fines and prison to ensure these fat cats get their money coming in as before
the solution is to remove the greed then everyone is happy but mandelson cannot see this as he is inherently evil and thus greed, to him, is a virtue
It's about loss of control of the supply and demand chain. IP owners used to have carte blanche on price gouging and making their products artificicially scarce in certain markets thus driving up the prices. They also had control of regional variations. The whole charge $1 in the US whilst charge £1 in the UK continues to this day. This they are unable to do when someone in Timbuktu can download from any place in the world.
It's all about control. He who has control of something in demand gets to set the price.
THE LIBRARY HAS CDS AND DVDS AND ALL THE BOOKS YOU WANT, FREE TO BORROW. THEY HAVE A SIGN 'DONT COPY IT' BUT I JUST PRETEND I DIDNT SEE IT. NOBUDDY HASSLES ME.