IFPI: Piracy Bad!!! Government Must Fix Because We Don't Want To Adapt!

from the wake-up-folks dept

It's that time of the year when the IFPI comes out with its annual fear-mongering report, and this year's has really gone overboard into the ridiculous. The basics are pretty much what you'd expect ("piracy bad! industry dying! governments must break everything to protect us!"). However, the details are just downright laughable. The entire report seems premised on the idea that direct music sales is the only thing that really matters (a blatant confusion about the difference between the recording industry (which the IFPI represents) and the music industry (which the IFPI pretends to represent). You can read the entire report below, but we'll go through some of the lowlights: In the intro, after bemoaning the losses in sales (but totally ignoring the massive increases in every other aspect of the music business), it claims that the tide is turning on the public's perception of unauthorized access to content. Proof? Rupert Murdoch's attack on Google and Microsoft's ridiculous decision to kick people off Xbox live if they made use of a glitch.

You hear it around the world: this is no longer just a problem for music, it is a problem for the creative industries: affecting film, TV, books and games. In this arena, the music industry is the pathfinder of the creative industries, pioneering with new offerings for the consumer. In 2009, Rupert Murdoch said that the content kleptomaniacs should not triumph and Microsoft spoke out against piracy, ready to ban players from Xbox live if they had modified their consoles to play pirated discs -- no three strikes procedure needed!

Of course, both are incredibly poor example choices. Murdoch wasn't actually complaining about "thieves." He was complaining about Google sending him traffic without paying. That's hardly the sort of issue the recording industry faces. And Microsoft was banning people not just for modifying their legally purchased hardware, but for using glitches made by software programmers. Again, an exceptionally different situation. You would think that IFPI could come up with something more compelling.

Then, amusingly, the IFPI mentions the Lily Allen saga with an amazing rewrite of history:

It was, until recently, rare for artists to engage in a public debate about piracy or admit it damages them. In September 2009, the mood changed. Lily Allen spoke out about the impact of illegal file-sharing on young artists' careers. When she was attacked by an abusive online mob, others came to her support.

First, that's not even close to true. Artists have spoken out about those issues for years (Lars Ulrich, anyone?). And Allen wasn't "attacked by an abusive online mob." Lots of people who actually understand these issues pointed out that while she was complaining about file sharing, she and her label (EMI) were distributing dozens of songs on her website in a totally unauthorized manner.

Throughout the report, the IFPI makes the false claim that it's representing "the music industry" and falsely describes "the music industry's revenue" as being limited to sales of music. As an example:

In 2009, for the first time ever, more than a quarter of the recorded music industry's global revenues (27%) came from digital channels -- a market worth an estimated US$4.2 billion in trade value, up 12 per cent on 2008.

But, of course, that's wrong. It is not the music industry's revenue. It's the recording industry. Similarly, the report only focuses on new ways to sell music when it discusses "new business models" and only briefly mentions efforts to connect with fans, suggesting (laughably) that Warner Music has been the leader here, rather than a distant follower. As such, it should be no surprise that the report continually ignores the fact that the music industry has actually been growing (and that's based on a study from the music industry itself). This report is like the makers of horse carriages insisting that the transportation market is dying, because they're selling fewer horse carraiges as automobile sales ramp up.

The report particularly singles out Spain -- which is no surprise, given that the Spanish courts have recognized that personal copying isn't a crime and taking away broadband access for copyright infringement makes no sense. The report moans and complains about how the Spanish music market is dying -- but again, only focuses on albums sales (as an aside, amusingly enough, I purchased a bunch of albums from Spain this year).

From there, the report goes on and on at length about how file sharing is killing music (despite the evidence to the contrary) and how the only solution is for governments to force ISPs to play copyright cop. It conveniently brushes off all the evidence to the contrary, and ignores the statistics showing a massive increase in new music hitting the market.

The report also tries to rope in other industries to show the "harm" caused by unauthorized file sharing:

Case studies around blockbuster movies show how top films now suffer from the same digital piracy problems as popular albums. Pre-release copies of Wolverine were downloaded 100,000 times in 24 hours after a leak in April 2009. In 2008, seven million copies of Batman: Dark Knight were downloaded on BitTorrent. This has a ripple effect across the industry, on investment and jobs. In the US alone, the film and television industries are estimated to employ 2.5 million people, according to MPA.

Unfortunately, neither "case study" supports the claim by the IFPI of "harm". Dark Knight was the highest earning movie of 2008 despite widespread file sharing, and a study comparing the box office results of Wolverine with other similar movies suggests that the pre-release downloads may have actually helped it at the box office. The only other "proof" is a quote from a filmmaker insisting that file sharing is taking away revenue. Bold claims in a year when Hollywood had its biggest box office take ever.

Of course, it goes on to say that Hollywood is losing jobs due to this, even though Hollywood's own studies show that job growth is expected over the next decade, as alternative models come into play.

The section on kicking people offline after accusations (not convictions) of file sharing is particularly amusing. Of course, the IFPI tries to redefine it as "graduated response." It cites numerous surveys that say people would stop file sharing under such a program, but reality seems to trump what people say they would do. And, nowhere has anyone explained why the threat of kicking people offline will actually cause anyone to buy. We already know it won't -- because today's threat of millions of dollars in fines hasn't slowed down file sharing in the slightest, despite being a much more significant punishment than losing your internet connection.

From there, it talks about the various successes the industry has had in ramming through legislation to kick people off the internet, ignoring the questions about the constitutionality of those programs in places like France where the law has been delayed over concerns it violates EU data privacy rules, or the massive protests against such backroom deals in places like New Zealand. Instead, the report falsely suggests there's widespread support for these programs. The report also falsely claims that ISPs in the US have agreed to private deals to kick people offline. While there was a brief claim yesterday that Verizon had made such a deal, the company quickly denied that and admitted that it had not kicked anyone offline. Oh, and not surprisingly, the report fails to note that the French agency put in place to administer its law, Hadopi, was caught infringing on copyrights in its own logo -- showing just how ridiculous a blanket policy is for dealing with these issues.

The report then has a whole section on the "success" story of South Korea, which is a joke. South Korea had a thriving music industry entirely without these kinds of laws, because smart music industry execs, like JY Park, have embraced new business models and basically admitted that selling CDs or downloads was a dead-end business. And while new laws in South Korea may have temporarily boosted music sales, the IFPI totally ignores the massive downsides to the laws that have resulted in various service providers blocking any music uploads or video uploads, seriously damaging the ability to create useful online services for users.

In the end, the report is really more of the same. It's the buggy makers pretending they represent the transportation business and demanding laws that block the development of automobiles in order to keep selling more buggies. But, of course, progress can only be blocked for so long, and it's about time that the IFPI entered the 21st century.

Filed Under: business models, ifpi, music, three strikes
Companies: ifpi

UK Record Label Boss Resigns From BPI/IFPI Committees Due To Mandelson's Digital Economy Bill

from the speak-with-your-feet dept

BPI and IFPI, lobbying groups that represent record labels, have been major supporters of Peter Mandelson's Digital Economy Bill, that will grant him powers to change copyright law at will, and to kick people off the internet based on accusations (not convictions) of file sharing. However, it appears that at least some record labels are realizing what an incredibly bad idea this is. EFF points us to the news that the boss of indie label Pure Mint Recordings has resigned from both the BPI and IFPI committee's he was a part of, citing his opposition to the Digital Economy Bill, and both organizations support of the bill:

Hall believes the proposed legislation has been rushed in a bid to get it through parliament before the next General Election, that it is in danger of disregarding some sacred legal principles (regarding process, presumption of innocence and burden of proof) and that it won't solve the record industry's piracy problems anyway.

In his resignation letter to the BPI, Hall writes: "I have enjoyed contributing to both [the BPI's] Rights [Committee] and the [IFPI's] ILC, but increasingly feel that my contributions are falling on deaf ears as an agenda has already been reached that I now consider is unmovable. As you know, I do not think the Digital Economy Bill is a sensible or well thought out piece of legislation. In my view it is being rushed through the last months of a parliament of an unpopular government and it is not legislation that I support".

Referencing clause 17 - the one that gives senior ministers the right to change copyright laws on whim - he continued: "I am particularly surprised that the record industry has chosen to endorse s.17 of the DEB, which I consider is wholly undemocratic and contrary to centuries of good practice regarding the forming of our copyright legislation. I also believe it may set a dangerous precedent going forwards (and could come back to haunt the industry)".

Filed Under: copyright, digital economy bill, labels, peter mandelson, three strikes, uk
Companies: bpi, ifpi, pure mint

Police Allowed To Hang Onto Seized Computers For Anti-Piracy Group, Despite No Gov't Prosecution

from the that's-bad dept

We were just noting that the IFPI thinks it's going to start seizing computers directly to get evidence of unauthorized file sharing, and wondering how that would work. At least in the UK, they may have just received some legal support. Over the summer, we wondered why an anti-piracy group in the UK was given access to and allowed to keep computers from a criminal investigation into an online service, called Surfthechannel, accused of unauthorized file sharing. The police seized the computers, but decided not to pursue criminal charges. It never made much sense that private, industry-backed anti-piracy group FACT was a major part of the criminal investigation, as they're quite the biased party. They were given seized computers as a part of this investigation -- and once the police decided not to pursue criminal charges, FACT kept the machines, saying it was considering a civil suit. However, the lawyers for Surfthechannel noted that the police and FACT had no right to keep the seized machines after the decision was made not to pursue criminal charges.

Apparently (and unfortunately) a judge disagrees. A reader alerts us (via comments on a totally separate story, rather than a submission -- not sure why) to the news that the judge in the case has said that police have every right to retain seized computers, even after they've decided not to pursue criminal charges. The judges noted that the law allows police the retain anything seized "so long as is necessary in all the circumstances" and then ruled that the potential of a civil suit from FACT was one of those "circumstances" that qualified. It's difficult to see how that makes any sense, but so ruled the court.

Filed Under: computers, confiscated, copyright, criminal, file sharing
Companies: fact, ifpi

IFPI: If Lawsuits Aren't Working In Denmark, We'll Seize Computers To Get Evidence

from the um,-wow dept

We just wrote about how the Danish anti-piracy group was dropping its lawsuits against individual file sharers after realizing that Danish law made it almost impossible for the industry to win those cases. However, as pointed out by brokep, the international wing of the recording industry, the IFPI, wasted little time in trying to spin the news in its favor (Google translation of the original). The IFPI insists that the lawsuits won't stop, but just that the anti-piracy organization was realizing it needed more detailed evidence -- and this means that it will now start seizing computers to get evidence. Now, the Google translation trips up over the word "beslagslaeggelse," but multiple Danish speakers have confirmed that the word means "seize" or "confiscate." Of course, that raises some questions about why a private organization representing record labels has any right to seize computers of individuals. I think they were better off when they just admitted they were going to give up on the counterproductive legal strategy.

Filed Under: antipiracy, computers, denmark, lawsuits, piracy
Companies: ifpi

Court Says Telenor Doesn't Need To Block The Pirate Bay

from the onwards dept

I'm heading over to Norway in the next few days to give a talk at the Nordic Music Week event, and it's nice to see that the courts in that country seem to recognize how silly the IFPI's demands that major ISP Telenor block access to The Pirate Bay are. Telenor was smart enough to fight back, and the courts have now said that Telenor is not liable for what its users do, and should not have to block access to a site like The Pirate Bay. From TorrentFreak on the ruling:

The court ruled that Telenor is not contributing to any infringements of copyright law when its subscribers use The Pirate Bay, and therefore there is no legal basis for forcing the ISP to block access to the site.... In making its decision, the court also had to examine the repercussions if it ruled that Telenor and other ISPs had to block access to certain websites. This, it said, is usually the responsibility of the authorities and handing this task to private companies would be "unnatural."

Good to see a court recognize that the entertainment industry doesn't own the internet, and shouldn't be the one to determine what is and what is not legal online.

Filed Under: blocking, norway
Companies: ifpi, telenor, the pirate bay

IFPI: The Pirate Party Shouldn't Be Allowed To Hold Its Positions

from the fascinating dept

I haven't been posting about the formation of local versions of The Pirate Party (a name I still hate) in places like the UK and Finland because I actually don't think it's that big a deal. However, Ville Valtasaari writes in and alerts us to the response of the IFPI to the formation of the party in Finland, which, oddly, seems to suggest that the IFPI doesn't think The Pirate Party should be allowed support its own positions at all:

"We are absolutely against the idea that any political party can give their support to the idea of free use of protected content."

Apparently freedom of political expression isn't high on the list of things the old recording industry likes. I have no problem with the IFPI saying that they disagree with the reasons for The Pirate Party's platform, but that's not what's being said here. The IFPI is claiming that no political party should be allowed to support such positions. Of course, the quote also totally misunderstands the party's position, but that's not much of a surprise.

Filed Under: finland, pirate party
Companies: ifpi

IFPI Using Disputed Pirate Bay Verdict To Claim Web Hosting Companies Are Liable

from the stretch-the-truth-much? dept

After the entertainment industry partially won its Supreme Court decision against Grokster, it didn't take long at all for the RIAA to start claiming the ruling said stuff it didn't. Specifically, the Supreme Court ruling said that a site could be found liable if it induced infringement by encouraging such uses. This was already quite surprising to many because the idea of an "inducement" standard for copyright is not found in the law (in fact, some in Congress had introduced an "INDUCE Act" to try to put it into the law -- suggesting that even Congress didn't think copyright law includes an inducement standard). However, the RIAA falsely started claiming that the Supreme Court ruling made all sorts of file sharing apps -- even those that did not encourage unauthorized copying -- guilty of infringing copyrights.

So, it should come as little surprise that the RIAA's international wing, the IFPI, appears to be doing the exact same thing with the recent Pirate Bay ruling (which, of course, is still being appealed and is highly disputed due to conflicts of interest with the judge in the case). The IFPI is apparently going around to web hosting firms who host other torrent trackers, and claiming that The Pirate Bay ruling makes them potentially criminally liable if they don't take down the tracker sites. But, of course, The Pirate Bay ruling was specific to the facts in that case, which are somewhat different from a random web host hosting a website for someone. Still, it just goes to show the lengths that the industry will go to in order to twist any legal ruling to try to shut down sites it doesn't like.

Filed Under: inducement, liability, sweden, trial
Companies: ifpi

Massive Layoffs Hit The RIAA: Maybe Focus On Building Business Rather Than Suing Customers Next Time?

from the just-a-thought dept

Details have been spilling out over the last few days that the RIAA has been making pretty massive cuts to staff. We already knew that EMI was cutting back on its support of the RIAA/IFPI, and it seems that with the rest of the RIAA's major label supporters also having economic troubles, the writing is on the wall that the RIAA is about to go through a major transformation. I'm sure some will somehow "blame piracy" for this turn of events, but it's hard to see how that's even remotely the issue. The real issue is that the RIAA has basically managed to run one of the dumbest, most self-defeating strategies over the last decade. Rather than helping major record labels adjust to the changing market, it continually, repeatedly and publicly destroyed its own reputation and the reputation of the labels -- each time shrinking their potential market by blaming the very people they should have been working to turn into customers. They may claim that they "had" to take this strategy because it's what the labels wanted (and, indeed, that was Hilary Rosen's excuse), but that's ridiculous. It was evident to pretty much anyone who took the time to understand the issues back in the mid- to late-90s, that the internet represented an opportunity to those who embraced it. The RIAA's decision to fight progress and its own customers at every turn has been nothing short of a complete disaster. That the group is now being gutted is the inevitable result of a poor strategy that could have easily been avoided.

Filed Under: layoffs, riaa, strategy
Companies: ifpi, riaa

Norwegian Education Minister Wants To Legalize File Sharing; While IFPI Demands Norwegian Pirate Bay Block

from the clashing-viewpoints dept

The trial of The Pirate Bay continues in neighboring Sweden, but Norway is having a bit of a battle concerning file sharing as well. Apparently, the IFPI has demanded that one of the country's largest ISPs block all access to The Pirate Bay or face a lawsuit. However, the country's Minister of Education, Bard Vegar Solhjell, has said that non-commercial file sharing should be legal, and the recording industry needs to learn to adapt:

"All previous technology advances have led to fears that the older format would die. But TV did not kill radio, the Web did not kill the book, and the download is not going to kill music. "

He said he and his party intend to look for ways to legalize non-commercial file sharing, noting that he thinks both consumers and musicians would benefit from such a solution.

Filed Under: file sharing, norway
Companies: ifpi

Can A Link, By Itself, Be Copyright Infringement?

from the someone-please-explain dept

A report in Billboard Magazine mentions that the IFPI and the MPA (the global versions of the RIAA and the MPAA respectively) have successfully been able to get ISPs in Mexico to take down 35 blogs which they say contributed to music and movie piracy. Specifically, they charge that the blogs had thousands of "infringing links." Of course, that leads to a rather obvious question: what the hell is an "infringing link"? Is it a link to infringing content? If so, then Google and pretty much any search engine is equally guilty. Simply linking to something, by itself, is not and should not be considered infringement.

Filed Under: blogs, copyright infringement, links, mexico
Companies: ifpi, mpa, mpaa, riaa