We all understand that the public perception of music has completely changed over the last decade. Music is not a possession anymore. It’s out there in the atmosphere, it’s in the cloud, it’s on Apple and Amazon servers, and although we still have a large amount of physical music available to us, people under 30 don’t think of music as a product to own and hold. Casual consumers download it for free and they don’t face any moral dilemma in doing so. Quite simply, people have lost connection with copyright law in music.
What can the industry do about this? Obviously, copyright is still extremely important because it’s the legal structure that allows intermediary record companies and publishers to invest in the acts on their roster, and it allows songwriters to earn a living from their work. The main problem is that copyright is viewed as an anachronistic law which is irrelevant now music can be distributed so cheaply outside the traditional supply chains. Why should I pay more than a few pence for an mp3 file that is, in essence, of poorer sound quality than a CD? If copyright law pushes up the cost from just a few pence to 59p or 99p, then it must be bad, right? Users fail to grasp that a portion of the download price of 59p or 99p per track is going back into the music industry; they presume it is only going to shareholders and boosting profit margins.
Unfortunately, much of the erosion we have seen in respect for copyright is permanent. We can’t un-invent the technology, but the first thing the industry needs to do is accept this. And, although the genie is well and truly out of the bottle, there are a few things that the music business can do to regain a bit of a foothold.
All creative industries need to think about the proper application of copyright law. In the last five years there has been too much focus on restricting the end user. The UK’s Digital Economy Act springs to mind, and there are similar laws elsewhere. The problem with this type of legislation is that it’s very difficult to enforce. And, as they’ve found in France, it’s counter-productive both in terms of expenditure and efficiency. Any industry that threatens a legal response against its own customers is cutting its own throat. The music, film and TV industries have all made mistakes in the past by trying to sue individuals and this should stop. Although I can see a strategy in that approach – it creates headlines and it makes people think twice about illegal filesharing – the general response from people is overwhelmingly negative.
The way forward is to attack the intermediaries. People mostly supported the litigation against Pirate Bay in Sweden. The hardcore filesharers didn’t, but the vast majority of people saw it as a positive thing. Similarly, action taken in the UK to block access to websites under what are known as ‘Section 97a’ orders have been quite effective. I think it’s a good strategy because you are cutting off the suppliers. If you compare it to the drugs trade, you’re not trying to put every user in prison, you’re going after the suppliers.
Another action the music industry should take is to find a way of negotiating the pricing down for digital downloads. I recognise that it will be difficult for them because they are now restricted by the bargaining power of big tech firms like Apple and Amazon, but it’s a worthwhile endeavour. Music fans think that most digital products are currently over-priced at 99p for a single download and £8 for an album. If a single track cost 29p or 39p people would rather obtain it legally than take the risk of going to a filesharing site and downloading something that has a virus or that isn’t the correct file or that might lead to their IP address being captured for nefarious means. If you price singles between 29p and 49p and albums between £3.99 and £5.99 I believe people would naturally migrate to legal downloads. It’s about using the market: economists will tell you that you can never compete with free, but that’s because they over-think rationality. If I had the choice between a single that was 39p or free through a filesharing site, I would pay every time because I would know that it was clean, legal file. The market definitely has a role to play in controlling the intermediaries, but I would strongly counsel against pursuing end users. The industry should take care not to alienate its customers and pick its battles wisely.
_________________________________________________________________________________________
Professor Andrew Murray is a specialist in copyright law and the role of digital media in society at the London School of Economics (LSE) Law Department. His principal research interests lie in online regulatory design, the protection of human rights within the digital environment and the promotion of online proprietary interests, encompassing both intellectual property rights and traditional property models.
Andrew is a member of the Management Board of Creative Commons, England and Wales, and currently serves as Articles Editor of the Modern Law Review. He is also a member of the UNESCO Advisory Committee study on Freedom of Expression and Media Development relating to internet practices.
What can the industry do about this? Obviously, copyright is still extremely important because it’s the legal structure that allows intermediary record companies and publishers to invest in the acts on their roster, and it allows songwriters to earn a living from their work. The main problem is that copyright is viewed as an anachronistic law which is irrelevant now music can be distributed so cheaply outside the traditional supply chains. Why should I pay more than a few pence for an mp3 file that is, in essence, of poorer sound quality than a CD? If copyright law pushes up the cost from just a few pence to 59p or 99p, then it must be bad, right? Users fail to grasp that a portion of the download price of 59p or 99p per track is going back into the music industry; they presume it is only going to shareholders and boosting profit margins.
Unfortunately, much of the erosion we have seen in respect for copyright is permanent. We can’t un-invent the technology, but the first thing the industry needs to do is accept this. And, although the genie is well and truly out of the bottle, there are a few things that the music business can do to regain a bit of a foothold.
All creative industries need to think about the proper application of copyright law. In the last five years there has been too much focus on restricting the end user. The UK’s Digital Economy Act springs to mind, and there are similar laws elsewhere. The problem with this type of legislation is that it’s very difficult to enforce. And, as they’ve found in France, it’s counter-productive both in terms of expenditure and efficiency. Any industry that threatens a legal response against its own customers is cutting its own throat. The music, film and TV industries have all made mistakes in the past by trying to sue individuals and this should stop. Although I can see a strategy in that approach – it creates headlines and it makes people think twice about illegal filesharing – the general response from people is overwhelmingly negative.
The way forward is to attack the intermediaries. People mostly supported the litigation against Pirate Bay in Sweden. The hardcore filesharers didn’t, but the vast majority of people saw it as a positive thing. Similarly, action taken in the UK to block access to websites under what are known as ‘Section 97a’ orders have been quite effective. I think it’s a good strategy because you are cutting off the suppliers. If you compare it to the drugs trade, you’re not trying to put every user in prison, you’re going after the suppliers.
Another action the music industry should take is to find a way of negotiating the pricing down for digital downloads. I recognise that it will be difficult for them because they are now restricted by the bargaining power of big tech firms like Apple and Amazon, but it’s a worthwhile endeavour. Music fans think that most digital products are currently over-priced at 99p for a single download and £8 for an album. If a single track cost 29p or 39p people would rather obtain it legally than take the risk of going to a filesharing site and downloading something that has a virus or that isn’t the correct file or that might lead to their IP address being captured for nefarious means. If you price singles between 29p and 49p and albums between £3.99 and £5.99 I believe people would naturally migrate to legal downloads. It’s about using the market: economists will tell you that you can never compete with free, but that’s because they over-think rationality. If I had the choice between a single that was 39p or free through a filesharing site, I would pay every time because I would know that it was clean, legal file. The market definitely has a role to play in controlling the intermediaries, but I would strongly counsel against pursuing end users. The industry should take care not to alienate its customers and pick its battles wisely.
_________________________________________________________________________________________
Professor Andrew Murray is a specialist in copyright law and the role of digital media in society at the London School of Economics (LSE) Law Department. His principal research interests lie in online regulatory design, the protection of human rights within the digital environment and the promotion of online proprietary interests, encompassing both intellectual property rights and traditional property models.
Andrew is a member of the Management Board of Creative Commons, England and Wales, and currently serves as Articles Editor of the Modern Law Review. He is also a member of the UNESCO Advisory Committee study on Freedom of Expression and Media Development relating to internet practices.
