It's not a great surprise that this has happened - we've known for sometime that Spotify's unpaid account options did not really represent a viable revenue model either for artists or record companies, though it was pretty superb for users (especially those early-birds who got a Free account while they were available). It all seemed like the perfect solution to the great piracy debate and a timely alternative to legal services which former pirates found unattractive (such as iTunes).

Reading the comments posted below Spotify's recent announcement of the changes on their blog, there is a clear divide between those who value the service enough to accept that paying for it represents decent value for money and those who  simply intend to return to piracy once the changes take effect. This, essentially, is the problem with online music distribution - there are sections of music consumers who simply won't pay (with cash at least) for the music they consume. If a free-to-user model which operates on an advertising basis (or some other alternative) can hook them in, then is a huge proven user base for this - as Spotify's user figures have shown. Otherwise it's illegal downloading all the way...

For the future though it seems that Spotify now knows exactly what it will be - and that is NOT the solution to end all illegal music downloading. Instead it will offer the unpaid account option as a 6 month trial/advert for its paid services - the latter of which is where they would ideally like to see all users. For a while now the company has ran both the paid and unpaid model as equal alternatives - which supported eachother - but essentially remained equals in terms of how the company was presented to the public. Now the unpaid model will function as a 'lite' sort of taster option, ultimately harnessed as a stepping stone to build the user base for the two paid services.

This should increase revenue significantly (judging by the aforementioned blog comments, there's more than a few users who will happily pay for something they enjoy using) but it effectively ends any hope that Spotify might be the answer to illegal downloading. Whether that would ever have been an economically viable route to take is something we won't know ever for sure (unless Spotify's execs share much more of the numerical data than they ever will) but in any case the option has been rejected; Spotify, from here on in, is an excellent music service if you wish to pay for it - if not, then it will now only satisfy only the most casual of users who wish to use it for a few minutes here and there - the rest, I suspect, will already be back on the torrent search sites.

(N.B.Techcrunch has broken some news this morning that Spotify is on the verge of launching a major movie service - though  this has been denied by the company - for now at least. If it does turn out to be true than it would only further confirm that Spotify essentially sees itself as a media entertainment delivery platform destined to offer digital access to paid-up subscribers: an on-demand film and music service for your computer/smart-phone not the magic solution to end music piracy online).

News comes this week that Limewire has lost a big, big lawsuit over in the states, where the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) took LW creators to court over copyright infringement on behalf of the four major music labels it represents. The exact value of the damages is not yet known - though it the RIAA is claiming many many million ($150k for every infringing work - of which there are several million...), but the result is definitely in - and Limewire has lost big-time.

However, the consequences seem likely to be dire not only for Limewire itself, but also peer to peer file-sharing in general, since it seems clear that such software now represents a serious legal liability for its creators. With Limewire having been downloaded around 200m times (according to CNET) this would represent a huge - but somewhat fleeting one feels - victory for the US media companies.

Even if we remove Limewire from the equation (which supposedly accounts for 58% of peer-to-peer music file-sharing) - and then also extrapolate the consequences to the industry's best case scenario - i.e. total peer-to-peer eradication, then one might reasonably expect the RIAA, the labels they represent, will share quite the celebratory glass of champagne...

The morning after though might bring with it somewhat of a reality check - namely the fact that other methods of illegal file-sharing (such as torrents) would simply scoop up the ex peer-to-peer user group, and that actually the problem really lies in people's willingness to continue to download illegally - something which is hardly abated by briefly high-profile lawsuit victories (Napster and the Pirate Bay spring to mind as other examples of supposedly crucial breakthroughs for copyright associations - though time has shown that the actual consequences of such have been far less significant than the claimant parties would have liked).

This is the true nature of the task of the RIAA - locked into fighting a war they know they can't win (America's war on drugs springs to mind here), but nonetheless hoping that the next high profile 'bust' and the ensuing media focus on law enforcement strength will magic away the sheer unfathomable scale of the problem.

So, when the current victories against peer-to-peer and Limewire are announced in the press over coming weeks, I recommend taking those headlines (like my one above) with a pinch of salt; for a more accurate reflection of the significance of such events, check the stock index of the music labels involved. It should tell you something a little more realistic, that such developments are nice for recording companies - they represent a good day for them - but hardly the dawn of a new era without piracy...

Dejan Levi

Firstly there is the matter of if your MP bothered to turn up for the vote - which incidentally took place in a late session thus ensuring a total minimum of fuss, in which only around 20 non-Labour MPs were present (mine was not present I was sad to learn). It is possible to check if your MP was in attendence - and how they voted - online at this page. If the complete indifference (or support) for this bill provokes a desire to attempt to voice your objection over the bill/your MP - you can do so at the Open Rights group online (which is campaigning against the bill and especially its clauses on disconnection of users over copyright infringement).

But we're getting a little ahead of ourselves - what of the actual bill itself? Well, the 76-page document generally involves a number of pretty uncontroversial measures such as those relating to domain name administration or radio and regional TV news matters. However - the most significant question, and the one which has caused the most extensive debates is of course the points on illegal file-sharing and the potential sanctions (including disconnections and fines) for users.

(N.B. A handy summary of the 45 measures can be found on the Guardian website).

So, what can we say about this controversial aspect of the new legislation? The degree of opposition to these laws seems to extend to every single person you can find - apart from those who belong to a copyright protection body (or liase with one) and the hundred or so Labour MPs who felt obliged to by the party whip to turn up and cast their 'yes' vote in parliament this month.

Now, maybe this is stating the obvious (after all, it's hardly surprising that a music-downloading web user would oppose the bill, while a company with vested financial interests should support it) - but perhaps we need to question whether legislation that is decided purely by the corresponding might/numbers of the opposing vested interests makes sense? Would it not be better to strive for a solution that is supported by a majority on the grounds of common sense and a viable compromise, rather than selfish self-gain?

Put simply, have we passed a law that suits only the interests of a single industry sector (perhaps harming others) just because they have a very prominent lobbying voice? It's like asking only a smoker what he/she thinks of the smoking ban and then introducing legislation off the back of it... rather than consulting a wide range of people and treating all their interests and views equally.

Like most, I agree that copyright infringement is a problem that hurts important industries and damages job prospects, gov't tax receipts and all the rest of it. However I'm also very aware of the fact that very often those who are guilty of supporting this piracy - are also those very same people who otherwise legitimately support the industries at the same time.

To give an example - those who really, really like music tend to try and access it as much as possible, buying many cd's, concert tickets and merchandise where possible and affordable, and at the same time also downloading illegal mp3s from the internet. I myself have on a few occasions downloaded an album illegally when unsure of whether or not I would like it. If the result was positive, I then went on to buy it in a shop (or another one from the same band) and would also look to go to a gig if possible. Sometimes I simply decided it wasn't for me and that was the end of it.

These days Spotify or MySpace can often (legally) fill this role, though not always, and it is here that the central point lies - disconnect an illegal downloader from the internet and you also simultaneously disconnect a Spotify user, an iTunes customer, an Amazon cd and lp buyer (and so on) thus damaging in the long-term the industry you seek to protect with these short-term measures (not to mention causing other broader problems discussed in this blog previously) - surely there has to be a cleverer solution to the problem based on a more complex understanding of it?

Dejan Levi