There are press reports in the UK that the government is seriously considering legislation to force Internet service providers (ISPs) to take concrete steps to curb illegal downloads. It is estimated that 6 million broadband users illegally download files each year.
I don’t, for a minute, doubt that piracy is responsible for a slump in the sales of music and film, with a consequent loss of revenue for media and recording companies, and for individual artists. I personally have no time for the argument that these companies can afford it. If they are doing work and taking financial risks, I have no problem with them reaping a reward, and creative and artistic individuals are entitled to receive income for their works.
However, I feel that the proposals to force ISPs to be gatekeepers are too late, and philosophically flawed. The horse has already bolted out of the stable, and ISPs are not the people to go chasing after it.
Representatives of the recording industry may lament the culture of creation-without-reward, but the fact is, it exists, is likely to continue to exist for the foreseeable future, and getting ISPs to act as industry police is unlikely to reverse the culture. Any legislation is only likely to succeed if it is replicated world-wide, and we all know that that isn’t going to happen.
There is also a mountain of cultural practice that it will be virtually impossible to shift. Hard-up teenagers viewing the extravagant life-styles of their artists are unlikely to feel guilt about stealing a few pence from them, and the fact that music has been free for a lot of people for a lot of years means that there is an expectation amongst a significant proportion of the population that it should continue to be free if they want it so. (Imagine the furore that would erupt if serious plans were introduced to charge for email.) I am sure that there are already encrypted systems being created to enable downloads to be made without ISPs being able to see the location and content of the download, or other schemes to circumvent watching eyes.
Apart from the difficulties of moving a cultural mountain and of enforcing any legislation, I think the whole notion is philosophically flawed. ISPs provide a neutral service. Why are they being held accountable for how individuals use that service. They provide a pipeline that most people use for legitimate purposes. Why are they being held responsible for those who use the pipeline for illegal purposes? Are the makers of photocopiers held responsible for illegal copying? Are road builders, petrol suppliers, and car manufacturers held responsible for the transportation of stolen goods or for dangerous drivers? Are telephone service providers held responsible for the criminal conversations that are made using their systems?
Of course, if ISPs are made responsible for illegal music and film content, why bother to stop there? The obvious next step for some, would be to make them responsible for purveying pornography. And then after that? Some governments around the world are well aware that you can try to restrict web access to all kinds of other ‘disagreeable’ content that they have made illegal.
In a free society I want to argue for both free speech and self-censorship. I also want to argue for unrestricted web usage and self-restraint. If ISPs have to be involved at all in stopping illegality, use them as sources of information, not as enforcers of legislation. Let them hand over their records to the police if necessary, and let the forces of law do the prosecution, not the highway builders.
I am in broad agreement with what you have said here.
The arguments are clear and well presented.
The philosophical aspects of this are excellently thought out.
With the last paragraph, I agree the ISP’s need to act as sources of information, not legislaters. It is not their job. However,while there should be free speech and self censorship, being cynical, people tend not to be as self-censored as they should be. Unresticted web usage will automatically mean that many will take advantage of that service and freedom.
You and I would not intentionally do this, many would and not give it as second thought: believing, I have been given access to this material why not use it?
It would be as wrong to require ISPs to censor people’s downloads as it would be to require the Post Office to censor people’s mail. The idea is morally wrong. Unfortunately, this government (I can hardly believe it is a Labour government) has revealed itself to be immoral, undemocratic and abusive of human and civil rights. The sooner we get shot of it, the better.
I also take issue with people who claim that illegal downloads “steal money” from the music industry. This is the same as the nonsense that London Transport “loses” millions of pounds a year because of people who travel without tickets. How can something you have never had be stolen from you? It is illogical.
There is no reason to suppose that the illegal downloader, if he were unable to download, would have bought the CD. Therefore, the money was never on the table to be “stolen” or “lost”.
This is more than a semantic issue because it is used to obfuscate the debate and allows the music industry to use smoke and mirrors to make unjust claims.
SilverTiger
I think I would differ with you about the notion of ’stealing’. If I create something and put it on a stall for selling, and someone comes along and takes it without paying, isn’t that stealing? If an artist records something for sale, and someone takes it without paying, isn’t that theft? Perhaps I am missing something here.
onethoughtfulwoman
Unresticted web usage will automatically mean that many will take advantage of that service and freedom. Agreed, but that is the risk of having free humanity. I, personally, would rather have that than censorship.
The ISPs are caught in the middle of a dispute for which they are not responsible. It’s easier for the government to shift the responsibility for cleaning up the problem to another party rather than doing it themselves.
Another point… the idea that ISPs are technically capable of filtering illegal downloads seems naive. They do not have the capability to distinguish legal audio/video downloading from illegal ones — nor do they have the ability to see “inside” an SSL/SSH stream.
I for one really, really don’t want my ISP sniffing at what I browse or download. Nor do I wish to pay for lots of technology and hardware for them to even attempt to do so, I pay enough as it is. And (not that it really matters, but) I don’t download illegal audio or video, I’m one of those who’ve spent may thousands of dollars amassing a large CD and DVD collection.
Hmm… maybe one reason for the slow down is that people have lots of better content than most of the drivel that’s for sale now?
I don’t, for a minute, doubt that piracy is responsible for a slump in the sales of music and film,
I certainly doubt it. Partially responsible, yes. Significantly … well, maybe or maybe not.
I’d definitely blame the fact that an audio CD isn’t acoustically different from what it was 20 years ago. No one is replacing vinyl/LPs anymore.
And, of course, at least as significant is the fact that the major labels still want ridiculously high prices for CDs and DVDs. They would probably sell 10x the volume if they cut the prices in half.