Hat-tip: @nevali

As The Register’s story says:

Reporting research that will further fuel the debate about the effect of copyright-infringing file sharing on the music industry, Ofcom said that a jump in single sales of 27 per cent and a rise in the consumption of digital media files, rather than discs, has slowed the decline in music retail earnings almost to a halt …

The report suggested that at other times the performance of the music retail market might have been even better.

“It is worth noting that this relative improvement in performance took place during a recession, when disposable incomes may well be squeezed.”

Second, though, it also takes an extremely old-fashioned and rigid attitude. It’s one of saying “stop the world, then throw it into reverse as that’s the only thing we can do”. The reality is that one of the most effective – and tried and tested – ways of tackling illegal file-sharing is to make legal file-sharing easier and more widely available.

The book and journal publishing industry faced a similar challenge in the past as photocopiers spread. Photocopiers were increasingly used to make illegal copies of publications – with all the usual arguments that flow from that. But rather than demanding that the state sent round photocopier inspectors to unplug photocopiers that might have been used for an illegal copy, the industry ended up with more more sensible and durable solution: sell bulk licenses for the right to use a photocopier to reproduce copyrighted material. Of course not everyone follows the license as they should, but the licenses produce a significant income from the large and ready market of people (and, in this case, in particularly libraries) who want to be legal and will be legal – if you make it practical to be so.

In the case of the music industry we’ve seen similar block licensing for other medium – it’s how radio stations can practically broadcast large numbers of different songs. Having to individually negotiate the rights to each song would be impractical. The result? More playing of songs, more direct money for the music industry – and more indirect revenues too as each playing of a song acts as a free advertisement.

However, in the online world such bulk licenses are still rare with the music industry dragging its feet in many negotiation sessions. Peter Mandelson, judging by what he’s proposed in the Digital Economy Bill, is happy with this hostility to bulk licensing. But for constitency, perhaps he should not also add in proposals to demand a three strikes and your toner is impounded policy on photocopying…

But in agreeing to call the proposals “three strikes and you’re out”, I think the campaign has ceded an important advantage to Peter Mandelson & co. That is because, taken on its own, that phrase actually sounds pretty reasonable.

Imagine someone hearing of the proposals in a mainstream media story where the limitations of time and space often mean little is said about the detailed pros and cons of a policy. The very name itself – “three strikes and you are out” – makes it sound reasonable: You have to do something wrong three times before you get punished? What could be wrong with that – except perhaps why be so generous as to wait until the third time?

For policy and political wonks “three strikes and you are out” may bring up negative thoughts of draconian sentencing laws tried out in the US – third offence equals heavy jail sentence – which have resulted in lengthy jail sentences for minor (third) crimes. But for most people, using this description makes the policy sound decent.

That is particularly ironic given the practical details with Mandelson’s plan means that in practice it would be anything but three strikes and you’re out.

People knowingly share internet connections (e.g. within a household). People unknowingly share their internet connection with others (e.g. when a computer is infected with malware). ISPs are not exactly strangers to making a mess of customer records, such as about who has got which internet connection. And so on – including, most perniciously, an assumption of guilty until proven innocent.

In other words, far from “three strikes and you’re out”, it’s far more a case of legal roulette. Just because you’re innocent won’t stop you from being treated as guilty and having to acquit yourself from someone else’s actions.

What to call it instead? Ah, um… I’ll admit to having not come up with a good alternative so far. But I’m sure the campaign will do better if someone does.

I’m not aware of comparable figures for other laws, but 42% strikes me as  being a very low figure. It highlights another problem with the Government’s dalliance with taking tough (sounding) measures to enforce the law. Though Labour now is backing away from the idea that someone could be cut off from the internet without any need to follow a judicial process, that still leaves the question of whether a crack down is really technically workable or the best long term solution. The softness of public support for the law in this area adds another reason to doubt whether the Government is on the right course.

Most strikingly, there has been a clear drop in the popularity of filesharing in the UK – and that wasn’t caused by a crack down but by the increasing availability of legal downloads:

In December 2007 42% of 14-18s were file sharing at least once a month. In January 2009 this was down to just 26%.

The example I’ve used before – wanting to re-watch Mark Cavendish win the last stage of this year’s Tour de France – is still a striking one. There are lots of illegal uploads available for me to watch. What’s extremely difficult to find is any legal way of watching it again (save for an expensive compilation DVD). The real problem there is the lack of availability of legal options. I’m happy to pay to see that clip again. Catch me at the right moment and I’ll even say I want to pay. But that industry doesn’t want my money.

Internet piracy is merely demand where appropriate supply does not exist, people will never go back to buying music legally, and protecting information online will only destroy businesses, according to a provocative essay set to appear on a Scottish Government-funded website tomorrow.

Written by Alice Taylor, commissioning editor for education at Channel 4, the essay flies in the face of Westminster’s Digital Britain report, which recommended that persistent file-sharers should have their internet access restricted or even barred.

Taylor argues that enforcing out-dated attitudes on how information is shared – ie, paying for it – is “a dying behemoth”.

She writes: “We must not let these dying behemoths take away someone’s internet access – and connection to the world – for some accusatory, unprovable ‘piracy’ claim, ever.”

These views chime with the instincts of Nick Clegg when I asked him about this at the party’s Bournemouth Conference. He was hostile to the Government’s preferred route of disconnecting people from the internet and instead talked about the need to find alternative ways of allowing artists and authors to earn a living. This view has also been backed by some in the music industry.

One route is the provision of blanket licenses, similar to those used in radio where the rights to broadcast each individual song do not have to be negotiated individually, with the result that more songs are played, more money is paid in fee – and the musicians get more profile which generates income through other routes such as merchandise sales too.

On this point The Herald adds:

Alison Butchart, from the Intellectual Assets Centre in Glasgow, said the ideal way forward, balancing a youthful generation’s reluctance to pay for anything online with the commercial needs of the artist, would be to follow the Spotify and YouTube models, where artists get a share of the site’s advertising revenue when their song or video gets played for free.

You can read the full report here.

Amazon has announced that its Kindle e-book is going on sale in the UK and other countries, initially by shipping from the US but with a free global wireless service for downloading new books to the device.

If it can dominate the supply of devices and of content, it would have a role in the book trade similar to that of Apple with iTunes and the iPod family in the music trade.

Google however has its own vision of the future. It has announced plans to extend its Google Books service, which currently makes available a range of out of copyright and copyright materials, by adding in the ability to buy books. They will be downloadable in a format which, Google hopes, will be taken up by the manufacturers of a range of electronic devices.

Whilst Amazon is trying to emulate the closed Apple model, Google is going for the open model that has previously served it so well.

Google already pays for around 90% of the 10m books it makes available via Google Books. Around 1 million are out of copyright but the rest are covered by revenue-share agreements. Being able to sell books adds a major new potential source of income.

The impact on authors is hard to judge. Nervous authors will be fretting that Google and Amazon will use market dominance to drive down royalties. Adventurous authors will be looking forward to the new self-publishing opportunities that both could open up. Optimistic authors will welcome the way e-books can keep books a relevant and contemporary medium even as the world goes more and more digital. Although book piracy is much less of an issue than music piracy, wise authors will also note that the more widespread availability of legal music downloads has helped curb illegal downloads.

The forthcoming struggle between Google and Amazon, both distinguished by that highly unusual feature of internet businesses of being large and profitable enough to compare with the biggest of non-internet firms, should be a sight to see. With a bit of luck, the competitive edge will drive down prices whilst driving up quality of service and technology. That should benefit both authors and readers in the long run.

Take this recent report from The Times:

Lily Allen condemned artists who have spoken out against the[Government's] proposals.

Allen, in a lengthy posting on her blog, criticised “rich and successful artists” such as Ed O’Brien, of Radiohead, and Nick Mason, the Pink Floyd drummer, [who] told The Times that file-sharing had some beneficial effects for artists.

The pair, part of the Featured Artists Coalition, which opposes plans by Lord Mandelson, the Business Secretary, to temporarily disconnect those who repeatedly flout the law, said that the government plans would criminalise young people.

O’Brien said: “My generation grew up with the point of view that you pay for your music. Every generation has a different method. File-sharing is like a sampler, like taping your mate’s music. You go, ‘I like that, I’ll go and buy the album’. Or, ‘You know what, I’ll go and see them live’.

“What’s going on is a huge paradigm shift.”

So as a follow up to the clip with Nick Clegg’s views on the matter, here is one musician’s musical riposte to Lily Allen:

(You can also watch the clip on YouTube here.)

Hat-tip: Mark Evans

Here is Nick’s answer:

(Also available on the YouTube site here.)