BBC p2p file sharing farce
p2p news / p2pnet: “Some of the top executives in the music industry have answered your questions about digital music,” says the BBC.
“The BBC News website asked for your queries and gripes about the way new technology is being used – and the eight sharpest, most frequent and most important questions were put to the virtual panel,” it says today.
The piece is seriously unbalanced and wholly one-sided. Even the claim that file sharers “steal” when in fact, no one has taken anything from anyone else, let alone the labels, and no one has been deprived of anything they used to own, is allowed by.
Predictably, the ‘panel’ didn’t feature anyone from the real world of online music – only heavily and obviously vested corporate interests, including Napster, the want-to-be-born-again p2p application which seems once more close to death.
Were the folks running Apple’s iTunes asked to participate, one wonders? And if not why not since it’s the only corporate service supplied by the Big Four record label cartel EMI, Vivendi Universal, Warner Music and Sony BMG, which can be said to be even breaking even?
Meanwhile, the questions asked were:
Q1. Will download prices come down?
Q2. Should iPod users be punished?
Q3. Why buy on the net?
Q4. Downloads aren’t flexible
Q5. What’s the point of DRM?
Q6. Will downloads last?
Q7. How can teenagers be persuaded?
Q8. Have you ever “stolen” music?
‘Answering’ were:
John Kennedy, chairman and chief executive of the Big Four’s IFPI (International Federation of the Phonographic Industry)
Peter Jamieson, executive chairman of the Big Four’s BPI (British Phonographic Industry)
Steve Knott, managing director of HMV UK & Ireland
Brad Duea, president of Napster
Head over to the Beeb site for all the answers. For now, below, mainly for your entertainment and amusement, are the responses to questions 1, 5, 7 and 8.
If you’re drinking something and you’re one of those people who snort liquids through their nose when you’re laughing hard, go no further.
Will the price of tracks or albums be reduced with the more cost-effective digital distribution method? You don’t have to manufacture the CD, package it, send it to the distributor/wholesaler, and finally the shops. Rowan Smith, Exmouth
Kennedy: I think digital is already fantastic value – a track for less than a pound is a great deal for the music fan.
Digital is a great way to enjoy music, but most of the costs of the physical world remain.
It’s a common misconception that the costs involved in making a record equates to the cost of the packaging. The majority of costs incurred by our record companies are for making and marketing the music itself – and these remain the same regardless of how it’s delivered. Artists, composers and all those involved in recording and marketing a track all still need to get paid. Same as when you pay £8 for a cinema ticket, you’re not paying the price of the paper the cinema ticket is printed on.
Jamieson: The costs you lose in manufacturing, packaging and distribution are insignificant in comparison to the major costs in bringing an album to market – namely A&R, business affairs, recording, touring support, radio & TV plugging, marketing, promotion, taxes and all the other business overheads.
There are also new digital costs such as aggregators, the creation, storage and delivery of metadata, payments to credit card companies and additional online marketing and website costs. That said, at around 85p, downloads are still considerably cheaper than CD singles and fantastic value for money.
Knott: Pricing – whether for physical or digital product – to a large extent depends on the wholesale price charged by record companies and distributors to retailers.
While the cost of manufacturing the CD is not that great, this represents only a smaller portion of the overall costs of releasing an album – the main cost of a CD is the investment of the record labels in their artists, recording, marketing and distribution. Hence, even when a song or album is being sold as a download, and thus incurring fewer production overheads, the label still needs to make a reasonable return.
Duea: First, you are correct that with digital distribution the labels have eliminated some of their previous costs associated with physical distribution. However, the labels have incurred some new costs. For example, the costs of encoding the tracks in the various bit rates in which they distribute the songs. Less obvious, however, are the costs the labels have incurred with regard to clearing the online rights for various artists and albums.
Second, in addition to the actual costs associated with the content, Napster also incurs bandwidth costs, storage and other hardware costs, customer service costs, marketing costs and other related costs.
Given that every single digital rights management (DRM)-protected song on the music download networks is still very easily found on any file-sharing network, what has DRM achieved other than alienating legitimate, legal, paying customers? Andrew Livingston, London
Kennedy: Without DRM, the explosion in the availability of music via digital channels would not have been possible. The purpose of DRM is not to alienate music fans, it is actually to improve your access to music.
There are now at least 10 ways in which you can legally enjoy music – the list includes: ringtone, master ringtone, phone download, phone stream, a-la-carte download, disc, subscription, online stream, UMD music for PlayStation, kiosk and video.
Without DRM, these options simply wouldn’t be possible.
Jamieson: DRM is the technology which makes all kinds of exciting new ways of listening to music possible. Certainly portable music subscription services like HMV Digital and Napster To Go wouldn’t exist without it.
Knott: I’m not sure that’s entirely the case, Andrew, and please remember that a lot of illegal content found on file-sharing networks may feature inferior audio or contain viruses. Either way, I still think that it’s right for content owners to protect copyright and manage the distribution of any revenues owed via DRM.
I agree that it may not always be perfect, and can understand frustrations among ‘legitimate, legal, paying customers’, but there is a need to have a system in place to manage this whole process.
Duea: At Napster, while our goal is to make any DRM invisible to the user. The DRM allows us to keep track of what songs are listened to so we can compensate the artists for their work and make sure they keep putting out great music.
While we are trying to make sure Napster music works with as many devices as possible, others – like Apple – do not licence their DRM and are instead electing to create a hardware trap for consumers. Also, the restrictions associated with DRM technologies are sometimes the result of restrictions required by the labels.
Most people in my age group (15) still download all of their music illegally. What action would you take to try to persuade this particular group to buy music? Cole Beler, Bruton, England
Kennedy: To me, if you steal music you can’t be a real music fan.
Think of it this way – apart from potentially landing you a hefty fine, illegal downloading hurts all those whose job it is to create, develop and record music, and who depend on it for their livelihood. How would you feel if you were in a band struggling to break through and no-one paid for your first album? How would you feel when no-one was able to invest in your second album? And as a music fan, how do you think that’ll impact on the variety of new, fresh music that you get to listen to?
The music industry has been working with different organisations to produce guides and online materials to explain to young people why illegal downloading is wrong – see www.pro-music.org/guide, www.childnet-int.org/music and www.pro-music.org.
Jamieson: Music doesn’t come for free, and there’s no reason why the artist who’s spent hours toiling in the studio, or the record label that’s invested millions in the music, shouldn’t be paid for their efforts. File-sharing might not feel like walking out of a shop with a CD under your coat, but it’s the digital equivalent of shoplifting. The fact is that unauthorised file-sharing is illegal. If you do it, you run the risk of legal action.
Knott: Everyone knows about Apple iTunes and, to a lesser extent, Napster, Wippit etc. But last year, both HMV and Virgin launched their own digital services, including the added-option benefit of ’subscription’ elements – so the choice is much greater and expanding all the time. The market for digital music is becoming increasingly more competitive as demand grows, so it’s likely downloaders can expect greater range, including exclusive content, keen pricing and other incentives. In such a context, there are very few reasons why people should not purchase downloads from legal sites.
The music industry is throwing itself wholeheartedly into the prosecution of people it perceives as “stealing” music. Can of the panel place their hands on their hearts and insist, honestly, that they never taped a song off the radio, or from a mate, in their youths? Simon Hayes Budgen, Milton Keynes, UK
Kennedy: You simply aren’t comparing an apple with an apple.
When you use an unauthorised file-sharing service you are effectively acting as a ‘mass distributor’ as whenever you’re online, every other user around the world has the ability to access your hard drive and take what’s on it. Not quite the same as making a compilation for your girlfriend on Valentine’s Day…
As it happens, I never did copy music off the radio – I was lucky enough to have a great record collection thanks to my brothers and sisters.
Jamieson: There is a misconception that p2p file-sharing is somehow similar to home taping, but there is a world of difference between recording the Top 40 onto a C90 and distributing perfect digital copies of songs over the internet to millions of people – and that’s exactly what file-sharing is.
I’ve certainly never risked a legal bill for thousands of pounds by distributing my music collection to millions over the internet – to do so is to rip off artists and everyone involved in making music.
Knott: I’m sure many, if not all, of us have taped a song from the radio or burnt a CD. But that’s fine – and it’s not an issue when people make small numbers of copies for their own use. It’s those people who abuse the process by engaging in serial downloading and particularly ‘uploading’, where they are giving away thousands of tracks that are not theirs to give, that are effectively cheating on everybody else, including other music fans, who possibly have to pay more for their legally acquired music as a result.
Duea: Simon, for years I have made compilations – initially vinyl to cassette and now purely digital. Compilations allow me to create my own personalised playlists for all sorts of events. Also, I used to listen to radio and jump to my stereo to record a hot new song.
Today, technology has made this issue a bit more complex and has turned the recording industry on its head. To address the file-sharing issue, we have been working hard to provide a “carrot” – attempting to attract people from file-sharing networks by providing a better experience.
(Thanks, Michael ; )
Also See:
once more – Is Napster on its death bed?, January 20, 2006
BBC News – Digital music: Industry answers, January 24, 2006






January 25th, 2006 at 4:19 pm
You’re welcome
There are quite a few good questions asked on the original article, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/4596228.stm that didn’t get asked. Why just 8 questions? I decided to send off an email to HMV (who hype their music rental service a lot during the article) today, asking why they remove access to paid-for music when someone stops subscribing. Will be interesting to see their response, though I doubt I’ll get one.
January 25th, 2006 at 4:53 pm
Thanks again, Michael ; )
Cheers!
January 25th, 2006 at 6:06 pm
“When you use an unauthorised file-sharing service you are effectively acting as a ‘mass distributor’ as whenever you’re online, every other user around the world has the ability to access your hard drive and take what’s on it.”
It is an incredible statement. Surely no copyright infringement lawsuit could make this farce of a claim. It is even more incredible considering that John Kennedy’s organization works for Sony interests.
You want to see a real infringing mass distributor at work?
Visit my site and look at the lawsuit we filed against RIAA member Sony in 2001 (yes, five years ago) for using our songs without a license. Sony has not even stopped the selling of their pirate copies of songs (on many recordings) we own even though they are adults, fully aware that they are infringing, profiting from the sales, and they have full knowledge of the copyright law as it applies to records. See here:
http://rafa_venegas.web.prdigital.com/venegas_v_sony_lawsuit.htm
I wonder why John Kennedy doesn’t say that the making and selling of millions of blank CDs per day is “Not quite the same as making a compilation for your girlfriend on Valentine’s Day…”. Surely the availability of blank recording media is the biggest threat (really unstoppable) of the music industry’s obsolete distribution model. My guess as to wht RIAA is not attacking the sellers of blank CDs is because these are financially and legally stronger than the copyright cartels.
BTW, the “Not quite the same as making a compilation for your girlfriend on Valentine’s Day…” suggests that RIAA thinks that copying one record with 10 songs is all right. Separately the record companies are saying that they can sue for $150,000 for each of the songs copied illegally, or $1,500,000. Why the different messages?
The movie companies claim a copier can be fined $250,000 for copying one single movie, per their terror warning on DVDs. I wonder how much would that be for a copy of a movie for “your girlfriend on Valentine’s Day”.
Rafael Venegas
http://www.gvenegas.com
January 25th, 2006 at 6:16 pm
Sounds like a corporate Q & A session to me. Quite farce indeed.
The BBC televison licence has now offically been classed as a tax (which we all knew anyways). If it can’t compete without a forced state tax it shouldn’t exist, it’s that simple.
I mean even if you don’t even watch the BBC channels you still have to pay for their ridiculously bloated licence fee.
Thats why i watch tv using my computer monitor + tv card now. I won’t be paying their pathetic taxes
January 25th, 2006 at 6:35 pm
“I’m sure many, if not all, of us have taped a song from the radio or burnt a CD. But that’s fine – and it’s not an issue when people make small numbers of copies for their own use.”
of course it’s not an issue as they think DRM will eliminate this….they also think the emporers new cloths are the cats ass.
January 25th, 2006 at 9:22 pm
I wish they would address some tougher questions like these:
Why do you say that “illegal content found on file-sharing networks may feature inferior audio or contain viruses” when you are trying to discourage file-sharers, but when you complain about industry ‘losses’, suddenly the public is “distributing perfect digital copies of songs over the internet”?
How can you say “it’s not an issue when people make small numbers of copies for their own use” when you are loading your CDs and online tracks full of DRM to prevent even fair-use copying?
Why are you not happy unless you are screwing artists, consumers and everyone in-between out of every cent you can get?
January 26th, 2006 at 12:02 am
I couldn’t find anyone on that “panel” who had any remotely interesting thoughts on technology. It was all “NOW” is great, just shut up and buy what we come out with.
Style, accuracy and grammar feedback form:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/newswatch/ukfs/hi/newsid_3950000/newsid_3955200/3955259.stm
Formal complaint:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/cgi-perl/complaints/handle_complaint.pl
January 26th, 2006 at 1:34 am
“Without DRM, the explosion in the availability of music via digital channels would not have been possible.”
LMAO. The explosion was because of p2p and the LACK of DRM. Stupid record execs.
January 26th, 2006 at 4:42 am
The scary thing is I’m starting to wonder if they are starting to believe their own bullshit. You can see this by the cartels actions with drm and lawsuits. Totally irrational behaviour if you had a logical brain. But if they actually believe the stuff they are shoveling then their brainless actions kinda make sense. I think their living in a fantasy land.
January 26th, 2006 at 6:37 am
How much does the bbc cost you? Cause we have the abc down here and the last time the govt “informed” us how much it was costing was approx 8 cents per day. There’s only one tv channel plus possibly a digital version which may or may not have been cancelled due to budget cutbacks, and a couple of radio stations, jjj and radio national.
Of course we don’t know how much exactly because it’s always been taken out of our taxes. There’s no license down here just lots and lots and lots and lots and lots and lots and lots and lots and lots and lots and lots of ads. The same ads over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again. During the one show.
Which is why i stopped watching tv over 8 maybe 9 years ago now.
January 26th, 2006 at 5:31 pm
This should have been titled ‘A Broadcast on Behalf of the Establishment’.
A more balanced line up would have included representatives from the independent record companies or AIM, the non major label controlled services like Wippit and even the odd musician.
Everyone in the record business knows that digital files shouls cost less than physical (but don’t), that DRM’d files sell less than non-protected MP3s and that the demographic that uses P2P networks is the same as those that home taping and ‘killing music’ 20 years ago (21 and under).
However, the PR team that put this together doesn’t want that to be the story…
January 27th, 2006 at 12:03 am
“The costs you lose in manufacturing, packaging and distribution are insignificant in comparison to the major costs in bringing an album to market – namely A&R, business affairs, recording, touring support, radio & TV plugging, marketing, promotion, taxes and all the other business overheads.”
LIE. Virtually all these costs are paid by the artists.
“Without DRM, the explosion in the availability of music via digital channels would not have been possible. The purpose of DRM is not to alienate music fans, it is actually to improve your access to music.”
LIE. I don’t even need to explain that one. Gawd, I can’t believe he squeezed out that wopper with a straght face!
“To me, if you steal music you can’t be a real music fan.”
LIE. First off, who says filesharing is stealing? And even if it were legally defined as such that statement is bare faced bullshit.
“To address the file-sharing issue, we have been working hard to provide a “carrot” – attempting to attract people from file-sharing networks by providing a better experience.”
They call suing their customers “providing a carrot”. Go figure…
January 27th, 2006 at 11:16 pm
“The majority of costs incurred by our record companies are for making and marketing the music itself – and these remain the same regardless of how it’s delivered. Artists, composers and all those involved in recording and marketing a track all still need to get paid.”
Well, at least the part about the cost to distribute being miniscule is true. However, what Kennedy didn’t mention is that artists actually make very little from cd sales, most of their money comes from tours. And last time I checked, MTV was baisically free advertising space for the record companies. The rest of that $15 you just spent on a new cd is lining Kennedy’s pocket.
“p2p file-sharing is…distributing perfect digital copies of songs over the internet to millions of people”
wait, wait, I thought that pirated music “feature inferior audio or contain viruses”.
“illegal downloading hurts all those whose job it is to create, develop and record music”
Unless Kennedy has put out a solo album I don’t know about, I am confident that none of the money I payed for a cd ended up going to the artist.
“Apple do not licence their DRM and are instead electing to create a hardware trap for consumers”
Damn those bad people over at Apple. Instead of paying huge fees to use an inferior DRM standard, they elected to use a superior open-sourced standard. Shame on them.
January 28th, 2006 at 6:02 am
I would just like to ask the panel, would the music scene be much healthier all round if we gassed the fucking lot of you?
January 29th, 2006 at 5:54 am
John Kennedy says: As it happens, I never did copy music off the radio – I was lucky enough to have a great record collection thanks to my brothers and sisters”.
Would this not be an example of copyright infringement? He should have bought his own legal copies of the music instead of “stealing” it from his siblings…