The group met in London yesterday. It did not represent the
entire UK industry – notably, the BPI was not in attendance. But
nearly 1,000 independent record companies and 50,000 songwriters,
composers and music publishers were represented.
Music creators are not paid when their work is distributed over
unauthorised peer-to-peer (P2P) networks. Despite the growth of
iTunes and other licensed sources of digital music, illegal
file-sharing is still huge. Internet traffic monitor CacheLogic
reports that 60% of all internet traffic by data volume is P2P
file-sharing – and music has been the main driver of P2P activity
to date.
But the groups represented yesterday do not want to target the
individuals who infringe copyright in this way. Instead, they want
to target the intermediaries.
According to a joint statement issued after yesterday's meeting,
ISPs, mobile companies and device manufacturers "profit extensively
and reap wider value from the unauthorised distribution of music
whilst being protected from liability by a series of legal
immunities and safe harbours." There were no ISPs in attendance at
the meeting.
Horace Trubridge, Assistant General Secretary of the
32,000-strong Musicians Union, compared ISPs to shops that play
music for customers.
"If I were to open a hairdressers and play music, I get a
benefit," he told OUT-LAW. "So PRS and PPL expect me to
buy a licence." He explained that an ISP is "getting a considerable
benefit" from P2P. And Trubridge wants ISPs to pay for that
benefit.
Asked how the system would operate and how licence fees would be
calculated, Trubridge replied: "That's the $64 million question."
The details have not been worked out; this proposal is only at a
formative stage.
Mobile companies and makers of MP3-players and other hardware
are also being targeted. Trubridge pointed out that Bluetooth
connectivity makes it easy to share songs among mobile phones
without any benefit to rights-holders. But Trubridge said this was
not a copyright levy of the kind that exists in other parts of
Europe. "This is not a tax on consumers," he said. "We don't think
consumers will notice." But he acknowledged that companies are
likely to reflect any new fees in their prices.
The meeting concluded that a 'Value Recognition Right' is needed
and that "unlicensed intermediaries – rather than consumers" should
be "the target of copyright enforcement actions."
Truman was critical of the BPI's pursuit of individual
infringers – the major 'uploaders'. "We don't think that's good for
the industry," he said.
Copyright legislation would need to change to accommodate the
proposal. It is likely that e-commerce legislation which recognises
and protects ISPs as 'mere conduits' would also need to change.
Asked whether he thought the changes could be achieved while
maintaining consistency with EU Directives, Truman said he hoped
the proposal would reverberate throughout Europe and possibly
worldwide.
ISPs and digital rights groups reacted with disdain.
Malcolm Hutty of ISP group LINX said: "We don't accept that ISPs
should be responsible for paying for all the value that our
customers acquire as a result of using the network. There are
already very effective procedures in place which rights holders can
use to pursue cases of copyright infringement and ISPs co-operate
fully with such investigations, but beyond that, it's nothing to do
with the ISP. There is no need for an ISP tax, and it is absolutely
inappropriate that the ISP industry should be forced to seek a
licence from the music industry in order to operate."
Suw Charman, executive director of the Open Rights Group, said:
"This proposal is ill-conceived and grasping. Suggesting that ISPs
and telcos should be responsible for the content transferred by
their users illustrates how poorly the music industry understand
the net, the right to privacy, and the ISPs' duties to their
customers under the Data Protection Act."
According to Truman, the music industry will present a paper on
its proposal to Andrew Gowers who was tasked last year by HM
Treasury to lead an independent review of intellectual property
rights in the UK. A public consultation ran between February and
April.
