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

Apparently though this is not a conflict of interest according to the judge in question. Well that's alright then, isn't it... Though it's exactly like having a Manchester United-supporting referee take charge of a Man U game. But nothing wrong there either, is there? Or maybe it's like having the CEO of McDonalds giving advice on the health impact of fast-food - again, seems ok to me. (I should stress these are fictional scenarios - i'm not referring to things that have actually happened as far as I know).

The argument is that the judge is an experienced professional who will not let such issues cloud his judgement. But I can't help but wonder how come the case came to this guy and not any of the other, non copyright group-affiliated, judges? It seems awfully convenient for the media companies that their case landed on the desk of this guy.

Anyway however it happened it seems likely that the issue will form a cornerstone in the defendants' upcoming appeals, leading to a probable re-trial. How such a detail was not spotted and dealt with prior to the very expensive media circus is anyone's guess, (and the Swedish taxpayers' loss) but ultimately all it does is add another very messy chapter in the online file-sharing saga. It's all turning out to be quite the reality tv show for those who fancy a bit more of a tech-component to their soaps than Eastenders currently provides...

Dejan Levi

However, far from being surprised I instead find myself relieved - and puzzled that so many are dismayed by the decision...

While not wanting to deny the need to control illegal internet downloading both for the sakes of artists and production labels/studios etc and users, it seems that this particular measure was fundamentally flawed in one sense - it relied upon cutting people off from the internet as a punative measure.

The main component of the bill would have permitted record companies or film studios to track illegal downloading and then, via the users' ISPs, issue a warning. After three warnings users would then be cut off from their internet connections by up to a year at a time.

Herein lies a huge problem - and one that everyone should be glad that the French government was sensitive to: that a country which employs measures that deliberately reduces levels of internet access is choosing both economic and cultural decline.

After all, we all know the vast extent to which such downloading takes place - meaning that if such a bill were passed we would then see literally hundreds of thousands of internet connections blocked within months, possibly rising to millions by the end of 2010.

So what happens to all those people who work using internet connections, or whose internet use earns money for other companies - through advertising etc? Though one could argue that they themselves have broken the law - it will be the whole economy that suffers from reduced productivity - and that is not a risk any country in the world can afford right now.

Yes it's also true that the policy would be very tricky to implement (what of households with multiple users on one connection? who gets punished and how?), but ultimately just as 100% employment is the economic ideal that governments recognise as worthy of striving for - so too maximum internet connectivity is essential for job creation, skills training, economic development and all the rest of it. It's not something worth jeoperdising because one particular sector is having difficulties - another solution is required.

Dejan Levi

The premise is fairly simple - driven by a direct reconfiguration of responsibilities and re-direction of revenue streams. Basically ISP's would be made liable for illegal file-sharing, but in return for accepting this burden (and incentive to help combat the problem), would also receive a share of profits from legal music download sales. The plan is being proposed by the Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform (BERR), and will be published in detail in January. But even now a few issues strike me about the whole idea...

First of all - is this to be mandatory for all ISPs, and if so can the government actually enforce such a move if ISPs object? (having a choice system simply won't work as then you'd have a situation whereby those in the mood for illegal downloading would naturally flock to the ISPs who chose not to accept the scheme). Therefore if this is to work then it has to be industry standard accross the board.

Now, the 'carrot and stick' approach (as this has been described) is all very well and good if the carrot is big enough and near enough to do the job. But considering the sheer scale and extent of illegal music downloading, I fancy ISPs are going to be hugely wary of accepting any serious legal responsibility, without a highly significant financial incentive. The issue is whether iTunes and all the rest of the online music stores reckon they can give up enough revenue to make ISPs go for it, without angering shareholders and damaging profits.

In short it seems BERR will have to convince all ISPs that this is a good idea (going against their collective industry wishes would be difficult if not verging on impossible) and this can only be done if the financial rewards are significant enough. Considering the risks and drawbacks for ISPs, the carrot is going to have to be pretty huge if they are to go for it. Are those who are currently making money from legal music downloads bothered enough to enlist the help of such expensive allies?

Dejan Levi

The plan is to embed advertising within content, or around it, so that users who currently access it with no authorization or benefit to the publisher will at least be exposed to targeted advertising in doing so. The idea is hardly new; we are used to commercial TV operating on this principle, and to film studios generating cash by placing adverts before feature films (and within them via product placement). There is now also a mobile phone equivalent in the form of network provider Blyk, which offers users free minutes and texts in return for receiving two or three targeted ads to their handsets per day. In January a US service called QTrax promised to have finally translated the principle to online music sharing.

Their premise was to offer users a chance to download a QTrax Media Player, which would slot onto existing p2p file-sharing systems and offer free access to unlimited music from participating record labels (currently including EMI and Sony) in return for being delivered a range of targeted advertising while downloading. The software would monitor downloading habits, and thereby ensure only relevant ads are shown.

There is however one unfortunate problem with these advertising based solutions, and it lies in users' perceptions of art. Music enthusiasts value what they download and listen to hugely (if not with financial backing), and it is often a serious passion or hobby in their lives. In other words it is 'art' and not 'content' to them, and unfortunately for publishers this art is a lot less accomodating to marketing techniques and practices than the modern concept of ad-friendly 'content'. Art's freedom from corporate interference or ulterior marketing only heightens its purity of unompromised creative vision, and hence its intrinsic artistic value. Very few mediums or genres have been able to integrate corporate mechanisms without turning off a huge proportion of their audiences (modern Hip-Hop and Rap is perhaps the only musical example of a genre whose audiences will tolerate brand messaging and corporate influence). It is this active resistance to the workings of marketing and big business that presents a considerable hurdle to publishers, even once the free element has been conceded. Casual users may be easier to persuade, but they are not the ones who spend hours upon hours surfing, downloading, hacking, programming etc. It is this section of users who firmly believe in the egalitarian, utopian freedom of the web - and especially so when it comes to filesharing.

Ultimately it is difficult for publishers in this climate where users have become rather accustomed to the concept of free music. Any move back towards a time of more limited access is unlikely to be popular, or even practical. Alternate more modern solutions such as making up lost revenue from delivering targeted adverts would in theory work well. The software is simple to incorporate into existing user habits and infrastructures of sharing; record companies are keen to sign up, as no doubt advertisers would be too (check for example the massive success of Phorm in convincing advertisers that targeted ads represent better value for money). The snag is that the real challenge in this persistent battle is not thinking up or implementing a new solution – but persuading users to compromise their current preference for entirely free, conveniently available and ad-free music access. It's a collossal task, and I for one do not envy their position in it.

Dejan Levi