And so my morning cup of coffee was today accompanied by the cutting-edge crew of BBC1’s Breakfast, as they delved into the veritable minefield that is music file sharing for all of 4 minutes… It would appear that a new website is being created to highlight legitimate download sites (i.e. those that come at a per-purchase price or subscription fee) and ‘red flag’ illegal sites offering free downloads or file-sharing. Please don’t ask for the site’s name as I’m pretty sure they failed to mention it.
Whilst the topical hot potato of illegal file-sharing should be highlighted more, and BBC1’s decision to touch on it this morning does signify that at least someone is taking it seriously, a couple of questions spring to mind. Firstly, is the Breakfast Show is the right platform for the issue at hand? But more importantly, isn’t this a story a not a drop in the ocean compared to the real issue here, namely the Digital Economy Bill?
I’d wager that I was in a very small percentage of viewers who didn’t switch over or run off to the kettle at this point of the show. To counter balance the Breakfast presenter’s collective inadequacy when addressing this ‘story’, the Beeb managed to pluck a youthful spokesperson from NME out of the sky, and an even more youthful radio deejay/born-again illegal downloader, who both managed to put across their opinion that nothing like this would stop people illegally downloading music online. Job done people, initiative successfully discredited and now lets move onto the ever-fluctuating daffodil market, currently suffering its worst season in 20 years…
Don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying this website is the way to go, and no amount of promotion will ever make this type of solution viable. The very idea of a website promoting ‘safe’ sites for legal music purchases seems to me to be missing one vital point: it relies on the notion that people want to pay for their music and avoid breaking the law. Even if this issue were covered properly, reaching millions of illegal file sharers, on a platform they watch regularly or subscribe to, I doubt you’d see them thanking the powers that be for finally emancipating them from this file-sharing slavery.
Not only is the concept fundamentally flawed, but given the inevitable passing of the DEB before the next general election, it also has the approximate shelf life of fresh basil. The House of Lords passed this bill through with a resounding ‘aye’ at a terrifying speed (perhaps they thought they were voting for roast lamb instead of pork that evening?) and the House of Commons look set to do the same. Soon enough we won’t be able to access these sites anyway, so why on earth would anyone want to visit a site telling them not to visit sites that they can’t actually visit in the first place? Should the DEB be passed, sites such as YouTube are as much at risk as LimeWire or Vuze. Surfers of the web face the very real threat of being disconnected if even suspected of copyright infringement. The blanket rules of the DEB are scary to say the least, but far too big to get into here and now - I witter on as it is.
The Digital Economy Bill is the real story here, and I personally don’t see enough information being released about it on more effective platforms. A pre-emptive website telling visitors (with no real authority) not to visit certain sites will be as effective as an NHS tourniquet at the source of the Thames, it’s a distraction and nothing more. The potential repercussions of the DEB being passed are huge, and not only should it really be directed towards those it might actually affect, but it should also be given the time of day that it deserves.
Now has anyone got a spare Spotify invite I can nick???
Joe
No comments:
Post a Comment