Legal, British P2P 'by end of year'

ISP-music talks get serious


Exclusive Legal broadband subscription services that permit file sharing may appear on the market by the year's end, according to music industry sources - after government intervention brought both music suppliers and ISPs to the table.

The UK would become the second country after South Korea where the music business has agreed to offer licenses to file sharing services in a bid to reverse declining revenues. The co-operation follows the intervention of "Brown's Fist", the former advisor and Parliamentary Under-Secretary at BERR (the Department for Business, Enterprise & Regulatory Reform) Baroness Shriti Vadera. Vadera is understood to have threatened both the ISP and music businesses with reform and policy intervention, threats which encouraged both parties to open negotiations.

The government is understood to be extremely reluctant to intervene with legislation as it threatened to do earlier this year, and cross-industry agreement to offer attractive consumer broadband music services would mean it wouldn't have to.

No deals have been signed yet and significant details have yet to be addressed. These include the royalty share between mechanical, sound recording and publishing rights holders, and administration issues. A significant amount of music released has never been licensed digitally - so should a music service provider ignore it, or attempt to pay the owners? As for price, this will be determined by the ISPs. However, sources are confident that Q4 2008 or Q1 2009 will see such the first of these offered to the public.

The move would represent the most radical supply-side reform ever considered by the music business in the modern era.

The major difference between the next generation of broadband-backed subscription schemes that are now under discussion, and those in operation today, is that future services would permit and encourage exchanges of music between subscribers. Most of today's subscription services such as eMusic and Napster permit the subscriber to download songs but not share them. There are exceptions: Omnifone's licensed mobile service Music Station permits "sharing" - Music Station subscribers can share playlists and the receiving device is populated with songs centrally over the network. QTrax offers a legal P2P service but this is ad-supported, rather than subscription-based.

The services require copyright holders to suspend, albeit privately and voluntarily, the exclusive right to copy a sound recording, in exchange for a license (and no doubt financial guarantees).

What's in it for me?

As envisaged, the new music services track exchanges of songs within a network using non-intrusive technology, and reward rights holders by their popularity. The new services provides advantages for subscribers, networks and rights holders.

For music lovers, activity that previously fell under copyright infringement becomes legal - lifting the threat of prosecution or disconnection. A more positive attraction is that there is no incentive to go to sites that distribute malware, or support phishing or child pornography in order to obtain music. Nor is there a need to obfuscate song names in Pig Latin, for example. More significantly, the supply side effects for consumers should lead to superior discovery tools for music: neither the consumer nor the music company has an interest in material being hard to find.

For the ISPs, music services offer a powerful customer attraction and retention tool, and ultimately relieve the pressure of dealing with high-bandwidth infringing users. (Contrary to their public statements, ISPs are keen to boot these infringing downloaders off their networks). If ISPs can convert a significant number of subscribers to use above-ground services, the appeal of hard-to-manage, badly-behaved protocols such as Bittorrent diminishes, making networks easier and cheaper to operate.

Next page: Risks and rewards

Similar topics


Other stories you might like

  • Russia mulls making software piracy legal and patent licensing compulsory
    Rule rethink would apply only to those in countries that support sanctions

    Russia is considering handing out licenses to use foreign software, database, and chip design patents, and legalizing software copyright violations, in response to sanctions imposed over its invasion of Ukraine.

    According to Russian business publication Kommersant, a government document drafted on March 2 outlines possible actions to support the Russian economy, which faces extensive trade restrictions from the US, the UK, and Europe, and business withdrawals.

    With companies like Apple, Oracle, Microsoft, and SAP halting sales (though not ending service to existing customers), Russia has instituted tax breaks for technology firms and conscription deferments for IT workers to retain its core resources and talent during the conflict.

    Continue reading
  • AI really can't copyright the art it generates – US officials
    Get ready for robot lobbyists to persuade robot lawmakers to pass robot-friendly laws?

    AI algorithms cannot copyright the digital artwork they generate, the US Copyright Office has insisted.

    Officials this month turned down a request brought by Stephen Thaler, founder of Imagination Engines, to register a copyright claim for a digital image he said was produced by machine-learning software. Thaler said the piece, titled A Recent Entrance to Paradise, was crafted by Creativity Machine, an automated system he invented and owned, and argued the software should be recognized as the author of the image.

    The US Copyright Office's review board said although it accepted the code-generated picture was made without "any creative contribution from a human actor," the board could not fulfill the request. Today's copyright laws only protect "the fruits of intellectual labor" that "are founded in the creative powers of the [human] mind," the board said in a letter [PDF] directed to Thaler's lawyer Ryan Abbott.

    Continue reading
  • Deere & Co won't give out software and data needed for repairs, watchdog told
    Farming groups demand some kind of actual action from regulators

    Updated Twelve farm labor, advocacy, and repair groups filed a complaint last week with the US Federal Trade Commission claiming that agricultural equipment maker Deere & Company has unlawfully refused to provide the software and technical data necessary to repair its machinery.

    The groups include National Farmers Union, Iowa Farmers Union, Missouri Farmers Union, Montana Farmers Union, Nebraska Farmers Union, Ohio Farmers Union, Wisconsin Farmers Union, Farm Action, the U.S. Public Interest Research Group, the Illinois Public Interest Research Group, the Digital Right to Repair Coalition, and iFixit.

    They contend that Deere & Company owns over 50 per cent of the agricultural machinery market in the US and has deliberately restricted access to its diagnostic software and other information necessary to repair its products in violation of the Sherman Act and statutes covering unfair and deceptive trade practice. And they're asking the FTC to intervene by putting an end to these practices.

    Continue reading
  • Malaysia tweaks copyright law to hit streamers of copyright-infringing content
    Those enabling piracy may be guilty until they prove otherwise

    Malaysia's House of Representatives has passed an amendment to a 1987 Copyright Act that makes enabling illegal streaming punishable by fine, prison or both.

    Those who facilitate copyright infringement face fines of RM200,000 ($2,377) or more, up to 20 years prison, or a combination of both, whether their illicit action be through manufacturing, importing, providing, advertising, or distributing streaming technologies.

    By specifying streaming, the amendment updates the previous outdated privacy law that focused on those downloading the content into permanent storage and those who subsequently bootlegged the videos, something that all of a sudden seems very 2008.

    Continue reading

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2022