BPI Effectively Admits That Digital Economy Act Was Useless
from the reading-between-the-lines dept
Every time I come across BPI, the UK's version of the RIAA, I'm amazed at how single-minded its focus seems to be. There's little interest in improving profitability for record labels. There's little interest in creating better music. There's little interest in smart new business models. It's only about "piracy" and how evil it is. What's funny is I saw the BPI's Geoff Taylor on a panel a couple years ago, and he was one of the people who would say two sentences in a row that would contradict each other. It was always something along the lines of: "We should stop 'going to war' with our customers... but first we have to stop piracy!"This past year was a banner year for BPI. The UK market has bucked the trend in pretty much every other part of the world and has seen recorded music sales growing, while its overall music industry (if you count how much money musicians actually make -- beyond just recorded music sales) has been growing for quite some time. Even with all of that, BPI was able to push through the incredibly draconian Digital Economy Act in the UK via questionable means.
So BPI should be thrilled, right? In the midst of a recession, and a massive decline in recorded music sales everywhere else in the world, it was able to buck that trend even before it got this new law passed.
But no, to BPI, absolutely everything is about "piracy." It's put out a new report whining that "piracy" is still increasing and saying it's all Google's fault. Of course, this isn't a surprise as BPI has been trying to set Google up for a lawsuit.
Of course, by my reading of this new study, BPI is effectively admitting that the Digital Economy Act was useless. The industry was already growing before it, so the main reason behind it was to help slow down the dreaded "piracy." And it failed in doing that. So, shouldn't BPI now support a repeal of the Digital Economy Act?
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: blame, copyright, downloads, piracy, uk
Companies: bpi, google
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Good one MIke
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Good one MIke
When pigs fly, to funny!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
They can fight all they want, I have moved on to a legal free service, they will see no money from me ever.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Industry representative bodies, represent the industry, they are charged to represent.
Representive bodies, are only voices or representative voices of the entire industry..
They are not making up the idea's or rules, they are stating what the industry is telling them. They are representing the industry.
And it is clear, even to you mike, that the "industry" is calling for copyright reform, world wide. So its obvious that the representative voice of that industry will say what the industry wants represented.
read the mission statements of those two groups, the BPI and you will see that they are there to represent the industry.. and that industry, can see they are losing money from piracy, so their representive body does what it can to support the industry it is representing...
Get it ?
via questionable means.
Yes, I followed that link and as often is the case it leads to one of your own articles, and from that article it appears the only person questioning those means is you.. I guess that is so at some time in the future, you can claimthe desision was by questionable means.. why,, because Mike said so earlier, so it MUST be true..
one could say Mike that you derived that statement by "questionable means" too.
Just because you make a statement earlier it does not mean that statement is any more true or false now than when you made it..
they dont mature with age, a statment made of a false premise is still a false statement no matter how long ago you made it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Industry representative bodies, represent the industry, they are charged to represent.
...and so if the BPI/RIAA is being criticised, the industry as a whole is criticised by extension. Where's the problem?
"can see they are losing money from piracy"
That has yet to be proven with any accurate or realistic figures. Kind of important, especially when referring to a growing market life the UK. A market which happens to have been growing in a region that's been given access to new innovative business models such as Spotify as well as regional access to other services like Amazon that's blocked in many other markets. Interesting correlation and maybe a sign that free and reasonably priced access to music rather than "fighting piracy" with lawsuits is the answer.
"the only person questioning those means is you"
As ever, you seem to miss the complete point of an opinion blog. Of course it's only Mike's opinion - it's his opinion blog, and the issue is stated as an opinion. He backs up his opinion with clear reasons why he holds that opinion - more than I've ever seen you do.
" a statment made of a false premise is still a false statement no matter how long ago you made it"
So, what was the false premise? Which of Mike's stated reasons for feeling the way he did was wrong?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Industry representative bodies, represent the industry, they are charged to represent.
haha!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Industry representative bodies, represent the industry, they are charged to represent.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Industry representative bodies, represent the industry, they are charged to represent.
The BPI is set up to represent the industry. You are unbelievably naive if you think that that fact on its own guarantees that it actually does represent the industry.
In practice such organisations tend to get captured by small groups within the industry - often (but not necessarily) including the larger organisations . My guess is that those parts of the industry that are actually thriving are too busy making money to be bothered with the BPI. Therefore the BPI is representative of large companies and failures (overlapping groups in the present market conditions).
Get it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Industry representative bodies, represent the industry, they are charged to represent.
BBC
Guardian
Times
And just for contrast even Sky news suggests it was rushed through.
Of course it's all just Mike's opinion with no basis in fact... right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Industry representative bodies, represent the industry, they are charged to represent.
It's not "reform" if the changes only move in one direction - FOR big media, and AWAY from the public. This is abrogating the copyright bargain, and is unconstitutional.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I thought
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The results? Increases in recorded music sales.
I am not surprised to see TD gloss over that and head for "by my reading of this new study, BPI is effectively admitting that the Digital Economy Act was useless.".
The music industry was growing, but the recorded music industry was shrinking. BPI was seeing huge gains in licensing in the past, live music was going up, and recorded sales were dropping. Now recorded sales are heading back up.
By my reading, it looks like BPI may be on the right track, and may have helped the British marketplace turn the corner on piracy. This would be a significant change, and might be a leading indicator as to where things are going.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You must be new around here because this is what Mike has been saying for a long time.
"Now recorded sales are heading back up."
Yet they still whine:
http://www.ispreview.co.uk/story/2010/12/16/uk-bpi-claims-7-7-million-broadband-isp-customer s-illegally-download-music.html
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
BPI appears by this report to be right in their actions, and it appears that perhaps their actions are working.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
UK Music sales "stabilised" against a global slide in CD revenues,.....
It acknowledged that huge record sales by Susan Boyle and Michael Jackson may have bucked the downward trend,
So record sales have at best stabilised - mainly because of a huge boost caused by Michael Jackson's death and the advent of SuBo - who sells records to people who normally don't bother too much with music at all.
Plus, this data relates to 2009 - well before the DEA and so can't be linked with anything that BPI have done.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
So the recording industry's best strategy is to kill a major artist every year to maintain sales...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Correlation != Causality expecially where you focus on a single factor and ignore that it's accompanied by a reported rise in the thing (piracy) that would have to be going down to make your assertion true.
Mike suggests a paraphasing of the BPI statements based on the reasoned assumption that the DE bill was aimed at combating piracy rather than generating revenue. You want to suggest that it was aimed directly at revenue generation? OK, write your own article with the supporting reasoning and ideally evidence for your conlusions and I'm sure some people will show up to debate it with you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Reasoned assumption? In my world, that is called making s&%^t up. It is more "trying to read something into it that is positive for my opinion" rather than actually being reasoned.
More importantly, using that same "reasoned assumption" as the title for the piece is all the more misleading. The BPI didn't say that, Mike did.
If you fall for this obvious piece of fabrication, I can understand why you have a hard time with some of the more challenging stories here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
In fact, if this was in the other direction, TD would be crowing how this is significant. So it can only be significant when it supports the TD line, otherwise it's a meaningless blip?
BPI didn't say what TD is suggesting. They didn't even allude to it. TD drew their own conclusion and attempted to put the words in BPI's mouth. That is misleading and dishonest, and you know it. You can keep on defending it, but you know it's a huge reach, misleading, and entirely dishonest.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
It is a short term trend. With the sheer volume of bands out there (5 million on MySpace alone) the labels are going to see these profits start tanking in short order.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Except that the measure the BPI fought for haven't come in yet - and most consumers are fairly unaware of the BPI's activity.
So your thesis doesn't actually work. The rise in recorded music sales must have another explanation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Amazon UK MP3 store launched in December 2008.
Spotify launched in October 2008.
7digital was finally allowed to carry content from all 4 major labels in Spetember 2008.
I'm not saying there's a direct causal link, but it's interesting that there's a correlation between new businesses being allowed to sell or stream to UK customers in 2008 and a rise in 2009 sales. Remember, this is a market that, for example, Amazon US, Pandora and Rhapsody are not allowed to service.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Correlation does not imply causation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Or maybe their fears and whining were just a little overblown and a sluggish global economy is just beginning to come back to life?
Whatever the case, the industry has cried "Wolf!" so many times now that they're not deserving of the "benefit of the doubt", especially when they don't extend it towards the people they accuse.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Even pay what you want is a better proposition.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Techdirt Drinking Game Continues!
Drink!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Techdirt Drinking Game Continues!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Techdirt Drinking Game Continues!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Techdirt Drinking Game Continues!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Techdirt Drinking Game Continues!
Heh, it was either that or home-made absinthe. I felt the 'tini was safer.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
representation
Secondly, @ anonymous #34, I agree that this is not one of TD's better articles and your critique is largely valid, bar one bit: "People are buying more music. That is absolutely totally, and utterly against the trends that TD has been pointing to."
Read a bit more on the blog, that's not what TD has been saying at all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]