With more than six million people downloading music and film illegally every year in the UK, at a loss of billions of pounds to the recording industry, the agreement between internet service providers (ISPs) and the music industry to clamp down on piracy is a significant policy change. Nevertheless, it remains unclear how it will be made effective. The initial tactic will be to ensure ISP customers understand it is illegal to share music protected by copyright, so Britain's six largests ISPs will warn people who download that their activity is being monitored. It is thought that since most music is accessed by teenagers, this will alert parents to the extent of their children's illegal file-sharing. However, there is considerable scepticism over whether such a deliberately light-touch approach will have the desired effect on the slightly older age-group for whom free downloads are the accepted way to share music.
The important step is that ISPs have undertaken to develop legal file-sharing services as an alternative. As that is unlikely to replace all the illegal ones, however, it leaves unanswered the thorny question of what sanctions could be applied to their users. The BPI (formerly the British Phonographic Industry) has previously called for a "three strikes" system under which people who ignored three warnings would have their internet connection cut. This system is under consideration in France, but has been rejected by ISPs in the UK. Similar talks are taking place in Australia, Denmark, Japan and New Zealand, while the Recording Industry Association of America has taken legal action against 20,000 file-sharers. There is a case for international agreement: any attempt to police the global phenomenon of the internet is more likely to be successful if the rules do not change from one country to another.
The free-downloaders argue that the established music labels have long made handsome profits and are now suffering plummeting CD sales because they failed to see the potential of the internet. There is generally more sympathy for musicians who are being cheated of royalties, but some new bands are turning the technology to their advantage, relying on free downloads to become known. Earlier this year, the group Radiohead released their seventh album free on the internet, inviting fans to decide what to pay for tracks. The distributors should be equally innovative in harnessing the technology: legal downloads can also be free, supported by advertisements in the same way as commercial radio, or could be funded by an annual subscription. Until now, the service providers have argued that they are merely the conduit and therefore no more responsible for the "packages" distributed by their networks than the postal service for the contents of letters. To the music industry, this amounts to turning a blind eye to a robbery. The two sides' initial agreement is a step forward, but they must find a solution that is workable and rewards artists with their proper dues.
