The British Phonographic Industry plots its latest attempt to stamp out music piracy.
Music licensing group PPL, on behalf of the BPI, has put out an enquiry to its UK record label members asking whether they have licensed their music to a selected list of BitTorrent, file-hosting and MP3 search websites. It’s suspected the request will be followed by a High Court order for ISPs to ban the domains listed, following a similar purge in February.
Piracy has existed since the dawn of recorded music. As technology develops at an ever-quicker pace making piracy more prolific than ever, is all-out domain blocking effective, or is it a reactive and short sighted solution?
No one is arguing with the motives behind the BPI’s move to stamp out online piracy – it is undeniable that piracy can have a devastating effect on artists’ livelihoods. Radio Liberty recently wrote about how pirates are crushing Pakistan’s Pashtan music heritage and the long-standing institution of the recording shop. A main part of the problem, they explain, is that musicians are unaware of the intellectual property rights in their country and Pakistan’s trade bodies don’t have the same legal clout and exposure as they do in the West. The access we have to legal structures which can enforce copyright law is no doubt a good thing, but the BPI’s one-size-fits-all approach may not be the most effective one.
Piracy is a fraught issue, and the BPI’s main form of attack thus far has been to come down hard across the board. Controversy was sparked over their inclusion of Grooveshark as one of the targets for domain banning. Though all content on the site is user-sourced, it is still effectively a streaming rather than a download service and Grooveshark argue that their ‘takedown system’ means that they operate within the law. That said, this hasn’t stopped ex-Grooveshark employees from appeasing the majors this week by signing agreements never to infringe copyright again, nor to work for any company which ‘systematically infringes’ copyright. By signing these agreements they are effectively ducking out of the ongoing lawsuits between Grooveshark and the majors, demonstrating the powerful effect threat of legal action can have.
While it can act as a deterrent, there is a danger that the BPI’s strict and broadbrush attitude could stifle companies’ growth if they are moving into legitimate music streaming. Grooveshark has made moves to diversify and more legitimately represent independent artists, while the power of platforms and protocols such as BitTorrent to generate audiences and drive sales, rather than just encourage people to seek out freebies, cannot be underestimated.
As well as potentially stymying platforms which could level out the GAFA-dominated playing field, these simplistic domain bans often don’t have the desired effect of drastically reducing piracy. Shutting down one domain often leads to the rise of copycats which do exactly the same thing, leading to a perpetuating cycle of High Court cases while pirate sites make profits in between the BPI’s bouts of legal action. In fact, when Pirate Bay was banned by the BPI in 2012, the surge in press attention led to a 12 million visitor boost and Pirate Bay quickly found ways for users to circumvent the blocks.
Though not as simple to execute, perhaps the BPI should focus on weakening the foundations of these sites, making the business of piracy itself unprofitable through targeting actual transactions and big brand advertising on pirate sites. The BPI’s big purges are pretty black and white; in an industry which needs to be buoyant to make money and diversify, maybe they should be looking for shades of grey.