Study Says File Sharers Would Ignore Warning Letters; Recording Industry Gets The Wrong Message

from the let's-try-this-again... dept

The fight in the UK over how the recording industry will deal with future business models continues. The industry has been pushing hard for ISPs to start kicking people offline, believing (oddly) that pissing off a lot of people and making them lose their internet connections will magically make people want to buy music again -- rather than the reality: which is that it will piss off even more people and make them even less inclined to spend money on the industry. Yet, UK politicians have so far stood firm against a three strikes policy, sometimes claiming that merely sending warning letters should be enough to scare unauthorized file sharers straight. So, of course, it didn't take long for a new industry study to come out saying that a high percentage (around 67%) of file sharers would likely ignore such letters unless they were backed up by other measures, such as a three strikes regime.

So, of course, the industry is using this to demand more than just warning letters be mandated by UK law. But, once again, it appears the industry is getting the wrong message. Rather than realizing what the study is actually saying -- that unauthorized file sharing won't stop -- it seems to think that if it just finds that magic legal bullet, suddenly file sharing will go away and people will start spending again. What they should have recognized is that this study says that people will go to great lengths to file share, even if they know it's illegal, because they do not believe it is wrong or unethical. And, as such, if the industry reps were thinking this through, they might realize that this represents a giant opportunity to build business models around embracing such fan activities, rather than trying to hold back the tide.

61 Comments | Leave a Comment..

French Constitutional Council Guts 'Three Strikes' As Unconstitutional

from the sorry-Sarkozy dept

Well, that didn't last long at all... After some back and forth (and tremendous pressure from French President -- and known copyright infringer -- Nicolas Sarkozy), France passed a three strikes law that would kick people off the internet for three accusations of unauthorized file sharing. However, it looks like the law may be going nowhere fast. France's Constitutional Council has gutted the law, after finding significant constitutional problems with it. The Council specifically barred the heart of the law: the cutting people off the internet part, noting:

communication and liberty of expression are fundamental rights that only a judge can rule on.

Indeed. The council said that it could be okay to cut off internet users... but only with a judge's permission. It's expected that the law may be adjusted to push these issues in front of a judge -- but that's a much better (though still not perfect) situation, since a judge should at least require evidence rather than simple accusations. Either way, it's yet another defeat for an industry that continues to insist that somehow kicking people offline is going to "save" the industry.

15 Comments | Leave a Comment..

MPAA Also Likes The Idea Of ISP Enforcers For File Sharing

from the well,-duh dept

In a story that will surprise, um, well, none of you, Broadband Reports points us to an Ars Technica piece with an MPAA representative claiming "Hey, us too!" on a plan involving ISPs kicking file sharers off for accusations of file sharing. This, of course, follows the widespread reports about the RIAA's supposed agreements with ISPs (though not all ISPs are happy with the plan). While the RIAA got lots of press for it, the MPAA seems to have a better handle on the PR spin of such a program -- calling it a "graduated response" rather than a "three strikes" policy. By "graduated" they basically mean "scold, scold, lose your internet connection." I guess that's graduated.

Of course, none of the big questions about such a program are addressed by the MPAA (or the RIAA, for that matter), but it's almost comically endearing to see the MPAA claim that this is a "win/win/win" program -- where consumers are considered "winners" because they're not getting sued. In all honestly, this is a lose/lose/lose strategy. The MPAA would lose because it would make it that much more difficult for the industry to wake up and embrace newer and better business models. ISPs would lose by having to spend time and resources supporting the entertainment industry's quixotic fight to stop file sharing. Consumers would lose because it would effectively remove a great and inexpensive way of both watching and distributing more movies. Hell, even the lawyers would lose because they'd have fewer lawsuits to file. Who actually wins? Beats me.

21 Comments | Leave a Comment..