Music Industry Copies Language Of Copyright Reformers In Pushing For Three Strikes

from the oh-come-on dept

It’s really funny to watch the entertainment industry lobbyists use a popular trick among disingenuous debaters: it tries to flip the arguments being used towards themselves against their opponents. For example, we’ve seen copyright maximalists argue against those of us who question the need for gov’t intervention in issues like copyright claim that copyright represents a true free market, and weakening copyright law is somehow unfair gov’t meddling in the free market. The latest trick is particularly neat. Plenty of people argue that all of the attempted changes that the entertainment industry has been pushing for around the world are unnecessary attempts by this industry to prop up an obsolete business model. Would you believe that the entertainment industry is now using the same language in favor of its proposals?

Indeed. As lots of people are pushing back on dangerous plans to “kick people off the internet,” ISPs have pointed out how costly such a three strikes policy would be for ISPs who are suddenly drafted to be copyright police. In response, the head of BPI, the major UK music lobbyist group, responded by charging that ISPs were relying on an obsolete business model. Seriously:

“BT is clinging on to an old business model which is supported by illegal downloading. That’s not only unfair to artists and creators, but penalises BT’s many customers who use the internet legally,”

This implies — incorrectly — that file sharing is somehow a massive boon to ISPs. The very same ISPs who keep claiming they need to use traffic shaping to prevent any network from being overloaded by file sharing. It’s pretty ridiculous to claim that ISPs are relying on file sharing as any sort of business model at all. A huge percentage of people have internet access, not because of file sharing, but because these days it’s hard to get through life without an internet connection. Suggesting that they make their money because of file sharing is patently ridiculous. It’s the sort of thing that a reporter should push back on, when an industry rep spews such nonsense.

Filed Under: , ,
Companies: bpi

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “Music Industry Copies Language Of Copyright Reformers In Pushing For Three Strikes”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
23 Comments
JB says:

Re: lobby vs lobby

I would love to see the entire Telecom industry turn against the Entertainment industry. It would be a bloodbath that I would pay to see highlights of. (Now with non-redacted commentary! Watch and listen as the Entertainment execs blush while lying through their teeth. Witness the pandemonium as their paid chimps…er lawyers…parade made-up numbers in front of the Judges with full knowledge of their falsity.)

I can just see the ISPs that host the Entertainment websites cut them off; or even better, severely reduce their bandwidth and apply traffic shaping to all connections emanating from and arriving at those hosts. They can then claim that three or more individuals have accused them of illegally sharing files. Wouldn’t that be dandy?

Hephaestus (profile) says:

Re: lobby vs lobby

“With that said, does the music industry really realize how bad of a tactical move going against the ISP’s is?”

The problem is the music industry doesn’t think things through. We have seen them going for short term gains (Quarterly) and not looking long term continued growth. Long term continued growth requires them to make some tough choices which they will continue to not make. They will instead continue to change the rules to artificially maintain the current business model. In every case this has been done before, it has lead to a catastrophic collapse. All that is needed is a new competitor to come in with a disruptive technology.

The solution to their problem is quite simple, reduce the size of the each music company by 60-80%, open up their entire catalog for sale online using an Amie Street Model, and make licensing of both songs and music simple and affordable.

Will we see this happen? … more than likely not until they are on the verge of chapter 11. But by then their own actions will have destroyed them.

Look at this chartWMG – Warner all the music companies look the same.

Anonymous Coward says:

I like the part about it being “obsolete”. Even if it were a business model (which it isn’t), I can’t see how file sharing can be part of the past. Maybe they really don’t know what “obsolete” (or “business model”) means. Also, “many customers who use the internet legally”, as if there is a distinct group of users who do only illegal stuff and another separate group who does only legal stuff…

KD says:

This whole situation reminds me of the quote attributed to Max Plank: “The way to get a new theory accepted is to propose it and then wait for all the old physicists to die.”

Maybe we could speed up the process by assassinating any turkey who tries to argue that the music industry needs protection from file sharers, but that, in the immortal works of Dick Nixon, would be wrong. Maybe effective, but wrong. Too bad. We have a long wait.

Brooks (profile) says:

In other news...

This same argument applies to electric companies, computer hardware companies, and municipal water supplies. They all make money from people who engage in illegal file sharing.

Obsolete business models, the lot of ’em. And anyone who downloads copyrighted files should be cut off from all of ’em.

(Ah, I give up. You can’t satirize these people. They’re do it themselves.)

Chargone (profile) says:

anyone know where i can find several good assassins?

and lots and lots of money to pay ’em with?

because sometimes i think this is about the only way to deal with many high level stupidities.

3 strikes rule. with bullets. yeah.

they’d either shape up or be paralyzed into inactivity. or start hiring military level security guards… then sic’em on each other the next time they got into a big argument… hehehehe….

now That I’d pay to see. assuming i had money at the time.

[for the sake of any espionage types who may read this and panic that those who supply their funding are in danger, I’m not Actually stupid enough to think this is a viable solution. it’d probably depopulate the planet before it solved the problem, for one thing. I’m also so ridiculously poor [well, by western standards] that it’s completely imposable :D]

Marcus Carab (profile) says:

pushing back

It feels like a pretty long time since I’ve seen a reporter push back on anything related to IP, net neutrality, or any other serious issue that is intrinsically related to technology. It’s just too easy to make any argument sound good, since most people don’t know (or do somewhat know, but aren’t really immersed in) the real facts about the technology, the economics and the law.

In fact it seems like I only see people pushing back and offering real analysis on blogs. Damn blogs are clearly destroying journalism.

rabbit80 says:

Considering that most “Unlimited” accounts here have around 40Gb cap per month hidden in a fair use policy – which equals less than four days of full bandwidth usage per month, I would say that the ISP’s dislike filesharing nearly as much as the music industry. The ISP’s realise that they rely on filesharing, but are less draconian than big music and set limits that don’t lose them too many customers. If the FUP was set at say 2GB the ISP would lose 90% of its customers. The ISP’s do enough to prevent more serious infringements, but also enough to satisfy their customers. If they change their finely balanced business model by changing rules, their customers will flock to a new ISP – just as I did when I fell afoul of the FUP for exceeding my allowance.

... says:

Re: Re:

“The ISP’s realise that they rely on filesharing,”

Yes – and more than you imagine.

When you click on something in your browser, the host server to which you have connected, “shares” a file with your browser. A vast majority of internet traffic works in this manner and the ISP charges for the connection servvice used to facilitate this file sharing.

So, yes – ISP(s) across the globe know that they rely heavily upon the file sharing that goes on.

the orang3box says:

MAFIAA

FU*K the MPAA, and FUC* the RIAA….
April 1, 2006 – Motion Picture Association of America, Inc. (MPAA) chairman Dan Glickman and Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) president Cary Sherman today announced the historic merger of the two organizations. The newly-created entity is being called the Music And Film Industry Association of America™, Inc.

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...
Loading...