Why Kicking Fans Off The Internet Won't Make Them Buy

from the we've-done-this-before dept

When Lord Mandelson officially announced his plan to kick file sharers off the internet based on accusations (not convictions) -- the so-called "three strikes" plan -- I asked a simple question: how will this get people to buy more. It was fun watching industry defenders paint themselves into corners trying to explain it, but they couldn't. The best they could say is that the fear of losing an internet connection would get them to stop file sharing. But, of course, getting them to stop file sharing is a lot different than actually getting them to buy something.

And, on top of that, we already have empirical evidence that a fear-based campaign doesn't make people buy any more. Over at The Telegraph in the UK (where I'll now be writing a semi-regular column) I explore how the industry already tried a fear-based campaign when they threatened and/or sued tens of thousands of individuals for file sharing. Even the industry's most strident defenders, who support taking away people's internet access have admitted that such a punishment is less scary than being sued and potentially on the hook for millions of dollars.

So how did that work out? If the industry's logic is correct, than the fear of being hit with a multi-million dollar fine should be a lot more persuasive in (a) getting people to give up file sharing and (b) buy more instead. And yet... the industry is still freaking out, complaining about phantom "losses" and demanding new laws to protect them. So, if kicking people off the internet is less fearful than being on the hook for millions of dollars, and the potential of being sued for so much did not slow the growth of file sharing or get people to buy any more, can someone explain (please) how it's possible that anyone thinks kicking people off the internet will get them to buy?

Filed Under: peter mandelson, three strikes, uk

Will Three Strikes Ever Really Get Implemented In The UK?

from the might-be-a-long-shot dept

With Peter Mandelson announcing this week (as everyone expected) that he's going to introduce a proposal to kick file sharers off the internet under a "three strikes" plan, it's been amusing watching defenders of this idea try and fail to answer the question "how will this make people buy more stuff." Over and over again people explain to us why it'll decrease file sharing (something I actually doubt for a variety of reasons that I'll explore later), but no one has explained how it will make more people buy stuff.

But, perhaps an even bigger question is whether or not it will ever actually get implemented in the UK. TalkTalk, the ISP that has been fighting the proposal for a while (and even gave a nice demonstration to show why IP addresses are not accurate in figuring out who's responsible for online activity) is now saying that it will take legal action to block such a proposal from being put in place, saying that it's a violation of human rights to kick people offline based on accusations, rather than due process.

On top of that, the idea is already incredibly unpopular with the majority of people in the UK... and (most importantly) there's an election coming up soon in the UK. Backing a massively disliked proposal to kick people off the internet based on accusations using weak evidence... probably isn't a savvy political move at this moment. Given all of that, I'm wondering if the plan ever really moves forward in the UK, or if it just makes a lot of noise so that Mandelson and his colleagues can tell the entertainment industry how they tried, to make sure the political donations keep coming in.

Filed Under: peter mandelson, three strikes, uk

As Expected, Mandelson To Introduce Plan To Kick File Sharers Off The Internet

from the but-how-will-this-get-them-to-buy? dept

This should come as no surprise -- as it was pretty clearly a foregone conclusion after his dinner with David Geffen, but UK Business Secretary Peter Mandelson (who prior to that dinner didn't seem to care about this issue at all) has decided to totally ignore the Digital Britain report, as well as the widespread outcry from individuals and ISPs, and will implement a plan to kick file sharers offline using a "three strikes" system. While he says there will be an appeals process, there's no indication that there will be a due process system that allows for innocence before guilt. Instead, it sounds like the other way around. It's pretty clear, of course, that Mandelson was simply blowing smoke when he claimed he was merely asking for feedback around such an idea, rather than definitely endorsing it.

In defending the new proposal, Mandelson continues to state things that just don't make sense. He claims that he was "shocked" to learn that only one in twenty downloads were authorized, but fails to note that stat has little basis in reality. Meanwhile, he again insists that downloading is "economically unsustainable," ignoring two recent studies (one from Harvard and one from the UK's own PRS) showing that the overall music industry is growing. How is that economically unsustainable?

But, honestly, the biggest issue is that he fails to address the huge question that I keep asking, and which no one wants to answer:

How will kicking people off the internet get them to buy more product?

That's because there is no answer. Will it make some people participate less in file sharing? Perhaps -- though, it's likely to just drive more people further underground. But just because they stop file sharing it doesn't mean that people will buy any more. In fact, continuing this war on music fans is only going to make people less interested in buying. This is exactly the opposite of what the music industry needs right now. Taking the war against consumers up a notch only ensures that they're even less interested in giving any money to the entertainment industry. Instead, they'll find those who treat them right and actually give them a reason to buy (rather than trying to limit them) to give their money to.

Filed Under: peter mandelson, three strikes, uk

UK Law Enforcement Tells UK Gov't: Please Don't Kick File Sharers Offline

from the didn't-see-that-coming dept

Those who believe that kicking people off the internet based on accusations of file sharing is an affront to basic due process and civil rights have perhaps an unexpected ally: UK law enforcement and intelligence services have come out against Peter Mandelson's "three strikes and your off the internet" plan. Of course, they're not as concerned about due process and civil rights, as they are about making it more difficult to track down criminals online:

Law enforcement groups, which include the Serious and Organised Crime Agency (Soca) and the Metropolitan Police's e-crime unit, believe that more encryption will increase the costs and workload for those attempting to monitor internet traffic. One official said: "It will make prosecution harder because it increases the workload significantly."

A source involved in drafting the Bill said that the intelligence agencies, MI5 and MI6, had also voiced concerns about disconnection. "The spooks hate it," the source said. "They think it is only going to make monitoring more difficult."

Enforcement groups are also unhappy that the Government's change of plans has left them little time to draw up a response. Lord Mandelson's intervention came two months after the Government's Digital Britain report, published in June, failed to back disconnection.

So, the government's own plan said no to kicking people off the internet. The police and the intelligence services are saying no to it. Why is Mandelson still supporting it?

Filed Under: intelligence, mi5, peter mandelson, police, three strikes, uk

EU Parliament Pressured By France, Removes Clause That Bans Kicking People Off The Internet

from the ah,-regulatory-capture-at-work dept

With France passing its new law to kick accused file sharers off the internet based on accusations rather than due process, you may wonder how that could possibly square with the EU Parliament's position from earlier this year that no one should be kicked off the internet without due process, and should only be allowed in "exceptional circumstances." Well, it looks like the lobbyists and the French gov't put enough pressure on the EU Parliament that it's now ditched that clause, even though 88% of Parliament agreed to it the first time around. Forget gov't for the people, the EU Parliament has shown that it's now the gov't for an entertainment industry that doesn't want to innovate. Sad. In the meantime, we're back to asking the basic question that no one in the industry ever answers: how will kicking fans of your content offline make them want to buy anything? It may get some to stop file sharing, but it won't make them buy. It seems the industry has become so confused that it actually thinks stopping file sharing is more important than making money.

Filed Under: eu parliament, europe, human rights, internet access, three strikes

France Agrees To Kick File Sharers Off The Internet Again; Lobbyists Call It 'Consumer Relief'

from the up-is-down,-black-is-white,-you-said-what-now? dept

There isn't a huge surprise in the news that France has once again passed a law to force ISPs to kick accused (not convicted) file sharers off the internet under a draconian "three strikes" system. We all knew this was coming. After the original French three strikes law was gutted as being totally unconstitutional, French President Nicolas Sarkozy (who apparently doesn't believe any such law should apply to him, given his history of mass piracy) insisted that such a law was necessary to defend freedom. Yes, really. And, even as France's cultural minister was planning to get multiple internet connections just in case he got cut off -- while also wishing that his own creative content were "pirated" more often, the French gov't went back to work on putting in place such a law. The big "change" this time was to give judges 5 whole minutes to rule on file sharers, so that they could say a judge oversaw the case, rather than it just being a random accusation. I'm not sure how due process works with a 5 minute limit... but what can you do.

What's much more entertaining is seeing how entertainment industry lobbyists are cheering this on. I'm beginning to think that they actually believe that kicking people off the internet will make people buy more of their content. Incredible. First up, the MPAA's Dan Glickman (who's being pushed out of his job for being woefully ineffective):

"Today's decision is an enormous victory for creators everywhere. It is our hope that ISPs will fully honor their promise to cooperate and that the French government will take the necessary measures to dedicate resources to handle the enormous task ahead."

A victory for creators? Really? By kicking fans off the internet for promoting their works? Yikes. Someone's out of touch. Then we have Rick Cotton, of NBC Universal, the man who insisted that movie piracy was really harming the poor American corn farmer since people ate less popcorn with pirated movies:

"The French action recognizes that jobs and economic growth in creative industries are under assault by digital theft. We need a safe and secure Internet that enables consumers to access content easily but does not facilitate illegal file sharing that kills jobs in creative sectors."

Yes, and the corn farmers, too, right? So, if it's really all about jobs, what about the people kicked offline who rely on the internet for their job? Apparently those jobs don't matter? In the meantime, it's already pretty clear from multiple studies that it's not file sharing that's "killing jobs in creative sectors" but the inability of executives like Cotton to understand basic economics and business models.

But, honestly, the most guffaw-inducing response to this comes from Tom Sydnor at the Progress & Freedom Foundation. Sydnor, who as you may know, has a long history of making claims that don't pass the laugh test, has really outdone himself this time (it's even better than when he accused a college that couldn't identify accused file sharers of harboring "terrorists, pedophiles, phishing-scheme operators, hackers [and] identity thieves" by giving them a "get out of jail free" card). So what's his take on kicking people off the internet based on accusations? Well, it's really about consumer relief. No, seriously:

"As a consumer, I would far prefer the successive warnings that French law would now provide to the sudden financial devastation of the John-Doe lawsuit that American law would now require. I thus urge American internet-service providers and copyright owners to work together to provide American consumers with similar relief."

Ah, yes, because the only options are to sue everyone or to kick people off the internet? Apparently Tom has such incredibly little faith in the innovation ability of content providers that he assumes that they cannot craft unique and innovative business models that don't involve suing everyone or kicking people off the internet. How insulting of him towards content creators. Every time Sydnor makes a statement like this and PFF promotes it, it just weakens the work that PFF does in other areas. It's tough to take an organization seriously that has someone claiming that kicking people off the internet based on accusations of private companies is "consumer relief."

Filed Under: copyright, dan glickman, france, lobbyists, rick cotton, three strikes, tom sydnor
Companies: mpaa, nbc universal, pff

UK Parliamentary Group Blames Entertainment Industry For File Sharing Problem, Opposes Kicking People Off The Internet

from the good-for-them dept

More and more opposition is forming to Peter Mandelson's plan to kick accused (not convicted) file sharers off the internet. The latest is that the All Party Parliamentary Communications Group -- a non-partisan group of UK MPs and Lords -- has come out with quite a report damning the idea. It doesn't just bash the idea of such "three strikes" plans to kick people off the internet, but notes that the whole problem really comes from the entertainment industry itself for not adapting or innovating:

We conclude that much of the problem with illegal sharing of copyrighted material has been caused by the rightsholders, and the music industry in particular, being far too slow in getting their act together and making popular legal alternatives available.

We do not believe that disconnecting end users is in the slightest bit consistent with policies that attempt to promote eGovernment, and we recommend that this approach to dealing with illegal file-sharing should not be further considered.

Looks like David Geffen may need to start taking more UK politicians out for dinner...

Filed Under: all party parliamentary communications group, peter mandelson, three strikes, uk

UK ISP Shows Why Kicking People Off The Internet Based On An IP Address Is Dumb

from the let's-use-some-logic dept

UK ISP TalkTalk has been a strong critic of the way the recording industry has tried to turn ISPs into copyright cops in the past. A year and a half ago it swore it would not be a copyright cop, and scolded BPI for suggesting it had any responsibility to enforce the entertainment industry's poor excuse for a business model -- while also complaining about "the most unbelievably rude letter" that BPI sent TalkTalk in demanding it do so. At the time, he told them:

"They're not just shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted -- the horse has left town, got married, and started a family."

Well said. Then, earlier this year, TalkTalk's CEO also pointed out how naive it was to think that the industry could do anything to stop unauthorized file sharing, noting:

If you try speed humps or disconnections for peer-to-peer, people will simply either disguise their traffic or share the content another way. It is a game of Tom and Jerry and you will never catch the mouse. The mouse always wins in this battle and we need to be careful that politicians do not get talked into putting legislation in place that, in the end, ends up looking stupid....

If people want to share content they will find another way to do it....

TalkTalk is continuing to show how silly the recording industry's plans are, by doing a little demonstration. The company sent out a security expert on staff to an ordinary street in Stanmore, Middlesex. Then it had him find all the WiFi connections there -- noting that many were totally open, and many others used weak security. From a few open ones, he went and downloaded some songs including Barry Manilow's hit Mandy and the soundtrack to the 1992 film Peter's Friends -- those two choices in honor of Peter Mandelson, the UK Business Secretary who suddenly became a supporter of kicking file sharers off the internet using a three strikes provision after dining with entertainment industry mogul, David Geffen.

To be clear, in this case, the music downloads were both done legally -- and the company checked with the WiFi access point owners first to make sure they were okay with it -- but the point is still clear. Just because you have an IP address, it doesn't act as any sort of proof. TalkTalk's director of strategy and regulation, Andrew Heaney made the point clear:

"The Mandelson scheme is every bit as wrong-headed as it is naive. The lack of presumption of innocence and the absence of judicial process combined with the prevalence of wi-fi hacking will result in innocent people being disconnected."

This, of course, is the same point that plenty of people have been making for ages, but the recording industry never has a good response. They also haven't been able to respond to a more important point: how will kicking people off the internet make anyone more interested in buying music?

Filed Under: three strikes, uk, wifi
Companies: talktalk

UK Politician Proposes Motion Against Kicking People Off The Internet

from the some-sanity dept

While a bunch of politicians in the UK had been under the influence of entertainment industry lobbyists in believing that kicking accused (not convicted) file sharers off the internet would somehow magically bring back a working business model, at least there are some who recognize what a futile and backwards effort this would be. MP Tom Watson has put forth an "Early Day Motion" against such proposals:

That this House notes with concern the Government's proposals on file sharing which would allow rights holders to request internet service providers to disconnect for a period of time, or throttle, the internet connection of people who may be accused of copyright infringement via peer to peer networks; believes that disconnecting alleged offenders will be futile given that it is relatively easy for determined file-sharers to mask their identity or their activity to avoid detection; acknowledges that illicit file-sharing only costs rights-holders money when people download infringing content in preference to buying it; further notes that identifying offenders using the Internet Protocol address of a specific machine may punish those who share a web connection; and calls on the Government to ensure that any citizen accused of illicit file-sharing is given the right to legal redress in a court of law before sanctions are imposed.

I'd even take issue with the claim that it costs rights holders money when people download instead of buy -- as there's ample evidence that such things can lead to additional purchases down the road. But, still, this is a good start, and great to see some politicians not falling for the industry's claims.

Filed Under: peter mandelson, three strikes, tom watson, uk

Lily Allen No Longer in Favor Of Kicking People Offline... Just Cutting Back Their Bandwidth

from the um.-ok. dept

Well, this is getting particularly silly now. Despite claiming that she wasn't going to the meeting of various musicians in the UK to discuss Peter Mandelson's "three strikes" proposal, Lily Allen apparently did show up and said that kicking people offline was too draconian. This is, at least, a modest victory for those of us who questioned her stance. Still... it wasn't a wholesale shift. The musicians instead still agreed to support a similar three strikes plan, that just had a slightly less onerous "final solution," involving taking away most of a user's bandwidth:

"Our meeting voted to support a three-strike sanction on those who persistently download illegal files, to consist of a warning letter, a stronger warning letter, and a final sanction of the restriction of the infringers' bandwith to a level which would render file-sharing of media files impractical while leaving basic e-mail and web access functional."

That's still a pretty big overreaction to such things -- especially since none of these artists have been able to respond to the basic questions posed by many of us, asking for any evidence that the problem they face is actually unauthorized file sharing, rather than a shift in technologies and business models. Again, as we've pointed out countless times, the size of the overall UK music industry is growing, not shrinking, and those who have put in place business models that embrace file sharing have seen their own markets grow, not shrink. So, it's hard to see how the claim that "file sharing" harms the industry squares with reality. Instead, it sounds like a failure to adapt a business model is harming some artists, while other, smarter artists are doing just fine.

The group also condemned the vitriol that Allen had faced on an internet blog that she had set up to argue against music piracy.

Now, I certainly condemn any such "vitriol" as well, but again, nearly every comment I saw on the later posts on her blog were quite well thought out and well-argued. There was a lot of silly and condemnable comments on her earlier posts, but later posts brought up very good questions -- all of which Lily refused to respond to. So, I'm still having trouble believing that she shut down the blog due to any vitriol -- even if the press seems to be accepting that claim uncritically. It's also quite telling that she shut down the blog just after attention was brought to the fact that Lily herself was sharing a ton of music in the form of mixtapes.

It still seems a lot more likely that she shut down her blog not because of any vitriol, but because she was unable to respond to those questions. In fact, the brief response she had up, claimed that the mixtapes only used 30 seconds to 1 minute of songs. However, those who downloaded the mixtapes claim this is not true, and most of the songs appear to be complete versions. Furthermore, she claimed she made the mixtapes five years ago, but her own blog posts suggest it was more like three years ago... So, again, this is not vitriol, and while I'm sure there are some vitriolic commenters out there, I find it rather weak that Lily and these other musicians are refusing to respond to some very serious questions by hiding behind a claim that she was somehow unfairly "attacked." Playing victim when you were caught doing the very thing you condemn isn't particularly convincing.

I will say that I hope that many of those reasoned, well-thought out and carefully argued comments on Lily's blog before she erased it were part of what convinced her that her original support for cutting people off of the internet entirely was wrong. At least that was a small victory for reasoned debate. It's only unfortunate that once the debate started to reach more serious questions, she stopped participating. And, once again, given that she, herself, appeared to have shared a large amount of music, I have to ask if she's willing to accept the same limitations on her internet access that she came out in support of tonight. Will she accept limited bandwidth, so she can do basic web surfing and email, but no more? If not, how is that fair?

Filed Under: copying, copyright, infringement, lily allen, mix tapes, three strikes
Companies: fac, featured artist coalition