Panorama: Are the net police coming for you?

[Geoff]

Panorama: Are the net police coming for you?

 

The record industry claims to be losing £200 million a year to people downloading music for free and the government is introducing the Digital Economy Bill in an attempt to combat this.

Artists including Billy Bragg and Kate Nash, and X Factor judge Louis Walsh discuss the bill and the impact of unlawful file-sharing on their livelihoods and the music industry in general.

 

On iPlayer for those who missed it.

 

BBC - BBC One Programmes - Panorama, Are the Net Police Coming for You?

[sakwoya]

£200 million? Sounds like an industry failing to adapt to new technology/change in the market to me - I watched the program last night and found it to be a now-typical 'dumbed down' 30 minutes worth of Paranoia rather than 60 minutes worth of Panorama like when I was a kid (Cue Victor Meldrew moment).

 

Having said that it was thought provoking in a few areas but did leave me & t'missus with more unanswered questions than when we started.

 

Will the bill even get through before the next General Election.?

 

Right - off to iron my Pirate Bay T shirt

 

Graeme

[tech_guy]

IMHO it was a load of dumbed-down, scaremongering twaddle, with a few valid points thrown in for good measure. Nothing new and a waste of time watching. What's your take on it?

[Domino]

IMHO it was a load of dumbed-down, scaremongering twaddle, with a few valid points thrown in for good measure. Nothing new and a waste of time watching. What's your take on it?

 

So, about Panorama's usual level then.

 

Remember when they used to have journalism?

[Geoff]

Its sad that when the BBC really can do good investigative journalism (Newsnight, Horizon, lots of stuff on radio) they can also be reduced to Daily Mail levels of twaddle like this.

 

I want a discount on my TV license equivalent to the 30mins of my life the BBC wasted.

[Michael]

I did watch the program and the amazing thing is all the consultants/professionals said the Digital Economy Bill won't work (which I agree with).

 

Bitorrent itself is not illegal and neither is file sharing, but torrents or sharing of copyrighted material is illegal.

 

When the Government want to tackle the problem of drugs they tarket the dealers and automatically you break the chain. The same approach should be used to target the websites who contain lists of torrents. It makes sense and I am pretty sure ISPs would be in a more supportive position.

[Geoff]

Press Release from The Pirate Pary UK saying what we're all thinking:

 

Pirate Party UK - Panorama: Separating Fact from Fiction

 

The Pirate Party UK has come out as highly critical of the BBC's recent Panorama programme for its disappointing coverage of the Digital Economy Bill.

 

Although Panorama attempted to give a fair hearing to both sides of the controversy surrounding the bill, it was ultimately considered inadequate. In particular, the BBC was criticised for its failure to get informed commentary from organisations opposed to the bill, such as the Open Rights Group, Coadec and the Pirate Party, meaning that the arguments both for and against the Digital Economy Bill were incomplete, largely misrepresented and often factually inaccurate.

 

Even the title of the episode was misleading. This bill does not create any "Net Police" but is a private law, allowing companies to take action without being held to standards anywhere near as high as the police. The punishments the bill proposes are to be made without a trial and the protections the British justice system offers. It applies to the Internet and copyright the same "survival of the richest" (or those with the best lawyers) mentality that surrounds the UK's libel system.

 

The programme quickly demonstrated an element of laziness by directly quoting a figure from the BPI as to the losses they claim the industry feels due to online copyright infringement - a figure the presenter failed to challenge. At no time has any evidence been published to support any claims of 'loss'. Such claims are often derived from estimates extrapolated from assumptions made about guesses and are wildly divergent depending on who is making the claim, even if they purportedly represent the same loss.

 

Similarly the presenter never challenged the often repeated misunderstanding that the record industry - a middleman group that profits from the creative efforts of others - is essential to the greater music industry. Music existed for millennia before the recording industry existed, and will continue to exist long after the current blight business have been reduced to an unpleasant stain on the history of art and music.

 

Those interviewed seemed only too happy to blame piracy for all their troubles - never questioning whether the closure of small record shops, or the decline in signing of new artists might be at least partly due to other causes, such as the convenience of online shopping (as seen in many other industries) or the unwillingness of the large record companies to invest in anything new or innovative.

 

The government representative (Stephen Timms, MP) compared Internet use to electricity (noting that one should use both for legal purposes only) but failed to take the comparison further; electricity is not cut off at the mere allegation of unlawful conduct, nor do we expect electricity companies to spy on our usage. Electricity is seen as a vital utility and now most British people think the Internet is as well.

 

While the programme studied the effect that technical measures targeted at one IP address on a family (noting correctly that the IP address could not even identify an offending subscriber) it failed to consider what effect this might have on other communal Internet services such as those in libraries, universities or even the open wireless projects being run by many businesses and even cities.

 

Finally, it was suggested that there is an overall decline in music sales, something that even the BPI's own facts disagree with and that this was the "last roll of the dice" for the music industry when, as it was earlier pointed out, it is the record industry, if anything, that is suffering as more and more musicians and other artists realise the potential of the greatest technological, social and cultural development of the last 50 years.

 

These are only the greatest of the mistakes Pirate Party representatives noted. Without an appropriate balance, it was impossible for these errors to be exposed, and misstatements were not met by corrections from those of the opposing view or the presenter. Allowing each side to respond to each other is a vital component of true journalism and debate. The lack of opposing views in the Panorama programme meant that it came frighteningly close to becoming a propaganda piece for the content distribution industry.

 

Pirate Party leader Andrew Robinson said

 

The BBC have let the public down by failing to present both sides of the argument. The Digital Economy Bill threatens many core principles of law; the right to be considered innocent until proven guilty in a court of law, the right not to be subjected to collective punishments, and the right to free speech. I looked to Panorama to warn the public of the dangers of a law quite literally written by the BPI, instead I saw a programme that was more akin to a press release on the behalf of the handful of major record labels that are pushing the bill through parliament.

 

The Pirate Party stands firm, however, in it's defence of freedoms and honesty, and will be happy to provide evidence and factual statistics to the BBC, should it desire to publish corrections, or any other media representative that wishes to report on the facts, rather than half-baked hyperbole and scaremongering.

[mattx]

So, about Panorama's usual level then.

 

Remember when they used to have journalism?

 

They have not done that for years now.

They only touched on the real problem for around 30 seconds - the fact that record companies are not generally needed now - that's why they are pushing for this 'spying law' - because of the low costs involved / softwareware / burning of CDs / Making of MP3's / Websites is so cheap, and most technical savy teens are able to do so, they just cut the record companies out of the loop. They don't like this hence the fuss.

One day they may actually learn that if they charge £3 for a album / film etc - people may not mind paying that. Paying over £10 and sometimes £20 for a DVD / BR of course people are going to pirate.

They have shot themselves in the foot and are looking for someone else to blame.

[jamesb]

Remember when they used to have journalism?

 

The media, the BBC, or Panorama?

 

Whichever way, no.

[patty04]

lets start bouncing around german servers now so we cant be tracked for talking about

 

i download loads of content on the net which is open source (on my connection that is) via utorrent so i better not get done.

 

But i have to say 80p a track is a rip off, its not like your even getting it on a disc. so they should reduce it to like 30p or 5 for £1 i might buy a few then. but until then i not wasting my money on buying music till i have downloaded to see if i like it or not.

[dayzd]

But i have to say 80p a track is a rip off, its not like your even getting it on a disc. so they should reduce it to like 30p or 5 for £1 i might buy a few then. but until then i not wasting my money on buying music till i have downloaded to see if i like it or not.

 

I agree with previous posts about genuine music/video media being expensive, but you have to remember the artists involved in this, as well.

 

Charging £1 for 5 tracks is obviously a bargain for the consumer, but for the artist or band who created those tracks, it's not. Last time I knew any representative numbers (given that was a three or four years ago now), artists/bands didn't often receive more than about 10% of revenue generated from sales.

 

Even if you loved it, as in, music was all you've ever wanted to create and devote your life to because nothing else gives you the same pleasure and feeling of sharing and achievement, would you do it for just 2p per song?

[ZeroHour]

Even if you loved it, as in, music was all you've ever wanted to create and devote your life to because nothing else gives you the same pleasure and feeling of sharing and achievement, would you do it for just 2p per song?

But I think that artists should get more from downloads tbh. The argument about distro costs is out the window there and any savings thanks to online should ALL be put to the artists.

[mattx]

But I think that artists should get more from downloads tbh. The argument about distro costs is out the window there and any savings thanks to online should ALL be put to the artists.

 

Which is of course why the record companies are making such a fuss - they screwed up and now they are throwing their dummies out the pram because the massive slice were getting has alomst dried up.

They have to blame someone apart from themselves. It's typical bad management - will we be bailing out the record companies when they go bust like we did the banks because I'm fed up having to pay for other arseholes cockups with my taxes....

[srochford]

But i have to say 80p a track is a rip off, its not like your even getting it on a disc. so they should reduce it to like 30p or 5 for £1 i might buy a few then. but until then i not wasting my money on buying music till i have downloaded to see if i like it or not.

 

I wonder if I should link this to the other thread where teachers are being criticised for wanting to pirate software? Looks like other people are just as bad at stealing music!

[dhicks]

Last time I knew any representative numbers (given that was a three or four years ago now), artists/bands didn't often receive more than about 10% of revenue generated from sales.

 

Exactly - so now bands can cut out all the excess and simply sell direct to the public via a website.

 

--

David Hicks

[andyturpie]

The programme was a tad embarrassing to say the least and every time that Timms MP fella came on it, he gave me the creeps.

 

I have no sympathies with the music and film industries as they have not moved with the times. As im a vinyl collector, I love my old dance 12"s for the artwork and the physical look of the item (and for the analogue sound but thats another arguement lol). The same goes for the old cassette and CD theres always been a physical media and feel as if your getting something for your money.

 

I feel MP3's etc cannot be related to as a physical item hence why humans cannot relate to audio file=pay for it.

 

Imagine paying something in the region of £31,600 just to fill your Ipod classic 160gb:eek: There is also the solid proof that downloaders spend twice as much as people who don't.

 

The poor old musicians need to realise that making music maybe is not a viable way anymore to put food on the table and pay the mortgage, just as the same happened to the miners and shipbuilders in the eighties:mad:

 

and even if this bill is brought in, if the torrent sites cannot be used, people will just mail external HDD's with collections onto each other via the postal system...That until the postal system gets the blame for Lily Allen not being able to meet her monthly mortgage repayments.

 

Until then, I will keep buying my oldskool 12" vinyls.

 

PS here is a thought - If certain companies wish to sue individuals for illegally downloading their material, should we have a right to sue these companies who enforce their drivel on our eardrums with out our consent??

 

Cheeribye

[patty04]

Even if you loved it, as in, music was all you've ever wanted to create and devote your life to because nothing else gives you the same pleasure and feeling of sharing and achievement, would you do it for just 2p per song?

 

Even at 2p you get 10,000 downloads that £20,000 alone on one song being downloaded. then they release more songs they get more from them sales then they have gigs on top which they get paid a fair bit i say.

 

to many artists live outside their budgets.

[Domino]

Even at 2p you get 10,000 downloads that £20,000 alone on one song being downloaded. then they release more songs they get more from them sales then they have gigs on top which they get paid a fair bit i say.

 

to many artists live outside their budgets.

 

Er - maybe for lady gaga or similar, but do you realise what the average rock band gets from a gig?

 

somewhere between little and nothing once the tour manager, promoter, sound and tour crew, not to mention record company have taken their share.

 

And you're assuming that iTunes or however takes nothing of that. and the distributor.

[tech_guy]

Do you remember the really gritty, pithy journalism on Panorama back in the 70s and 80s? Wtf happened?! And World in Action, remember that? Excellent program that was as well back in the 70s and 80s - some excellent journalism.I remember my parents letting me stay up to watch both in the 70s as they wanted to let me see the world as it was, warts and all. Edited March 16, 2010 by tech_guy

[mattx]

Do you remember the really gritty, pithy journalism on Panorama back in the 70s and 80s? Wtf happened?! And World in Action, remember that? Excellent program that was as well back in the 70s and 80s - some excellent journalism.I remember my parents letting me stay up to watch both in the 70s as they wanted to let me see the world as it was, warts and all.

 

I've got a World In Action DVD somewhere at home with some classics on.

Panorama was good back in the 80's - now they get some pillock with a cheap OB unit and away they go. And with that whiney moron Jeremy Vine - it's reminds me more of a Fox News / The Day Today / Sky News car crash viewing.

[tech_guy]

Goldfish journalism I call it.

[jamesb]

Even at 2p you get 10,000 downloads that £20,000 alone on one song being downloaded. then they release more songs they get more from them sales then they have gigs on top which they get paid a fair bit i say.

 

to many artists live outside their budgets.

 

If you ever open a bank, I want an account.

 

At 2p on 10 000 downloads you get £200. Minus taxes you get maybe £150. For a small band of three members, that's £50 each. Now assuming that this is a full time job, and that you're very lucky and get 10 000 downloads of each song you release per year, that's £50 per song per year, so you only need to release 400 songs a year for a reasonable return.

 

That's only 33 a month. Easy!

 

So long as you spend nothing on publicity. Even at 20p per download, you're still going to struggle, and this is for bands who get a lot of downloads.

[thedogswassits]

i welcome this law, i download alot but what interests me about this law is that if ur isp knows u are downloading and can stop you then surely i can sue them for allowing malicious viruses through. the government is putting this law in place to make us buy music n movies ect so they can tax us 4 it but it means your isp is admitting it can control content and because of this it can also control the fraudsters and now make the isp liable so bring it on and let the legal battle commence.

[andyturpie]

Seems like the goverment are hell bent on this, more hell bent than protecting children on line?

[srochford]

it means your isp is admitting it can control content and because of this it can also control the fraudsters and now make the isp liable so bring it on and let the legal battle commence.

 

I think this is what the lawyers call a "non-sequitur" - ie just because the ISP can detect particular kinds of traffic does not mean it can detect and block all kinds of traffic.

 

Given that very many people with current virus scanners can't detect some viruses I suspect there's little hope of any ISP being able to block the bad guys.

 

That doesn't mean that they couldn't do more than they do but I don't think you'd have much chance of winning a law suit against your ISP because they let viruses through but please don't let that stop you - I reckon you could make some lawyers very rich while you try :-)