35 Most Creative 404 Pages Around
By Day: Digital Marketing Manager for the PIAS group. By Night: Radio DJ, Webhead and infrequent Producer person.
The government's dizzying statistic that over seven million Brits are involved in online piracy comes from dubious research commissioned by the music industry itself.
When the UK government advisory body, the Strategic Advisory Board for Intellectual Property, released an 85-page report in May pronouncing billions of pounds worth of economic losses and thousands of jobs lost annually due to illegal downloads, its claim of more than seven million freeloaders residing in Britain made headlines.
But the BBC Channel 4 show More or Less has investigated the figure and uncovered not only its rather questionable origin, but the massive statistical assumptions used to arrive at seven million.
The Advisory Board said it commissioned its digital piracy research from a team of academics at University College London called CIBER, which cited the 7 million figure as originating from a paper published by Forrester Research.
But when More or Less got a copy of the Forrester paper cited in the study, they discovered the 7 million figure was never actually mentioned. So they contacted one of the Forrester paper's authors, Mark Mulligan, who explained the number actually came from a separate report he had written for the Forrester subsidiary, Jupiter Research. A paper that was privately commissioned by the British recording industry trade association, BPI.
A government advisory body quoting figures paid for by a trade association that's actively lobbying for a crackdown on file-sharers isn't the worst of it either.
According to More or Less, the 7 million figure was actually rounded up from 6.7 million. The 6.7 million came from a 2008 survey of a mere 1,176 households connected to the internet. For the survey, 11.6 per cent of respondents (136 people) said they had used file-sharing software. The 11.6 per cent figure was then adjusted upwards to 16.3 per cent to reflect the assumption that more people wouldn't admit to file sharing. (Mulligan told the show that the adjustment wasn't pulled out of thin air, but based on unspecified evidence).
The BPI-sponsored research also went under the assumption that there were 40 million people online in the UK in 2008 — a figure much higher than the Office of National Statistics' estimate of 33.9 million that year.
The show notes that even if you accept the statistic that 16.3 per cent of the UK's online population is involved with illegal file-sharing, using the ONS figure would result in only 5.6 million offenders. And if you also don't adjust for under-reporting, it drops down to 3.9 million.
While neither of the numbers are necessarily more accurate than the BPI-sponsored estimates, it does illustrate that a few cooked assumptions here and some generous rounding there makes for a statistic specifically designed to scare. That number can also easily ooze up the ladder directly into the government's ear.
UK-based readers can listen to the program on the iPlayer here. ®
UK musicians and composers slam government’s anti-piracy consultation
Three music industry bodies representing the creative side of the business have hit back at the UK government’s plans to toughen up its plans to clamp down on online piracy.
The Featured Artists Coalition, British Academy of Songwriters, Composers and Authors, and the Music Producers Guild have issued a statement expressing “serious reservations about the content and scope of the proposed legislation”. And it doesn’t mince its words:
“Processes of monitoring, notification and sanction are not conducive to achieving a vibrant, functional, fair and competitive market for music. As a result we believe that the specific questions asked by the consultation are not only unanswerable but indicate a mindset so far removed from that of the general public and music consumer that it seems an extraordinarily negative document.”
The full statement follows below:
Response to the Department for Business Innovation & Skills Consultation on Legislation to Address Illicit Peer-to-Peer (P2P) File-Sharing from the Featured Artists Coalition (FAC), British Academy of Songwriters, Composers and Authors (BASCA) and the Music Producers Guild (MPG)
The above organisations, who between them represent the people who write, perform and produce music believe that the protection offered by copyright to recording artists, composers and songwriters is vital if the UK is to continue to be at the forefront of the global music industry. Copyright serves to nurture the writer and artist and those who invest in their creativity.
However we have serious reservations about the content and scope of the proposed legislation outlined in the consultation on P2P file-sharing. Processes of monitoring, notification and sanction are not conducive to achieving a vibrant, functional, fair and competitive market for music. As a result we believe that the specific questions asked by the consultation are not only unanswerable but indicate a mindset so far removed from that of the general public and music consumer that it seems an extraordinarily negative document.
The very fuzzy estimates for the annual benefits of such legislation (£200 million per year) make clear that such estimates are based firmly upon the premise that a P2P downloaded track equals a lost sale. This “substitutional” argument is, in reality, no more than “lobbyists’ speak”: it has little support from logic and no economist would seek to weave such a number into a metric aimed at quantifying a ‘value gap’ for the industries challenged by P2P.
In contrast to the lack of any credible evidence for the size of the substitutional effect, there is evidence that repeat file-sharers of music are also repeat purchasers of music, movies, documentaries etc. Recent research by MusicAlly has demonstrated the continued popularity of the CD as the purchased product of choice by many music fans. This combined with the continued significance of the CD in the revenue balance of record labels, suggests a much more complex equation in which file-sharing may erode sales, but where it may also promote other revenue streams. For this reason it is dangerous to view the downloading of music as the direct online equivalent of CD sales.
Of equal concern are those elements of the consultation that estimate the cost of implementing the proposals. The estimate of between £65 and £85 million for the first year contained in the consultation is likely to be a gross underestimate of how much such a system will actually cost owing to the complicated nature of the system proposed. This figure (if just compared with recorded music) represents somewhere between 10-15% of the market value after accounting for fixed costs such as CD manufacturing and staffing and, in the light of our comments above, is clearly disproportionate to any possible benefit. Even if the music industry is expected to fund only 50% of this cost, it is still disproportionate to any possible new revenues based on the system proposed.
Much online activity surrounding the sharing of music often coincides with a great deal of fan support for the artist concerned. The centrality of the artist in the new music ecology is such that the lobbying by labels to continue to try to sue or sanction music fans must be placed in a broader context of those fans’ behaviour. It must also be seen in the context not of the loss to a particular business constituency but whether it represents a real loss to the economy as a whole.
A file-sharing fans’ economic contribution to an artist’s career may focus around the purchase of merchandise and tickets to live concerts – the irreplaceable experiences which contribute to artists’ success, even though this will not compensate the creators of the music and lyrics directly unless they are also performers. The loss of appetite for the purchase of CDs is not mono-causal and cannot be blamed on file-sharing alone. The increasing competition for the recorded music fan’s pound that comes from the purchase of other products such as video games, and DVDs all contribute to a shift in spending on recorded music. This shift in focus does not necessarily mean that overall the creators’ revenue is reduced, nor that the UK economy is negatively impacted.
What the consultation’s proposals singularly fail to do is differentiate between the downloading and sharing of music by music fans, on a non-commercial basis, and those who seek financial gain or commercial advantage from such activity. This second group of “commercial” P2P users and facilitators should be pursued with the full force of the law as is the case with illegal CD plants in the offline world. Ordinary music fans and consumers should not be criminalised because of the failings of a legacy sector of business to adapt sufficiently fast to new technological challenges.
Looking backward for insight into how we adapt mass-production product models to the digital age of access and services has been a major obstacle to progress over the past decade. We must begin to look forward to business models that we cannot even imagine yet.
As creators’ representatives we are willing to be partners with government in exploring and navigating the opportunities and challenges brought by digital technologies. What we will not be a party to is any system that alienates our members’ existing audience and potential new audiences.
We see forward looking developments such as the Digital Britain Test Beds being sponsored by The Technology Strategy Board as key opportunities to remove the blinkers of the music industry incumbents and welcome the innovators to ensure some progress in this sector of the market.
In the light of the above we vehemently oppose the proposals being made and suggest that the stick is now in danger of being way out of proportion to the carrot. The failure of 30,000 US lawsuits against consumers and the cessation of the pursuit of that policy should be demonstration enough that this is not a policy that any future-minded UK government should pursue.
Tags: featured artists coalition
This entry was posted on Friday, September 4th, 2009 at 9:35 am and is filed under Digital Music News. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
2 Responses to “UK musicians and composers slam government’s anti-piracy consultation”
- UK musicians and composers slam government’s anti-piracy consultation Says:
September 4th, 2009 at 10:02 am[...] 1 votes vote UK musicians and composers slam government’s anti-piracy consultation Three music industry bodies representing the creative side of the business have hit back at the [...]
- Engelse muzikanten en componisten doen duidelijke uitspraken over de huidige muziekindustrie - MMMotion Says:
September 4th, 2009 at 11:12 am[...] Hilke on Sep.04, 2009, under Dutch Mijn stuk over Sabam is nog maar net koud en ik lees bij Music Ally een duidelijk statement van Engelse artiesten, componisten en producers, verenigd in drie [...]
Leave a Reply
« More Music News Tue. 9.1.09: Nokia Delays "Comes", Jamie Thomas, IODA, Vevo, Lovin' P2P, Napster & More | Main | Apple Reveals Sept 9 "Rock And Roll" Event »
2009.09.01
Hypebot Revisited: 100 Free & Affordable High & Low Tech Music Promotion Tips
As part of Hypebot's 5th Anniversary, we're bringing back some of our favorite articles. This 100 Tips post needs some updating after almost 2 years, but aside perhaps from "Infiltrating Columbia Records Site With An Anti-Label Ad", it is one of our most read and linked to posts ever.
There's lots of great and simple stuff here. Give it a read and let me know in the comments section what you'd add and subtract to upate it. If I get enough feedback, I'll publish a revised version.
- Never leave promotion to the other guy. Depending on your point of view don't count on the label, band or publicist to do their jobs. Do it yourself or it may not get done.
- Know your niche market(s) or hire/befriend someone who does.
- Always think of the fans first when making decisions.
- Start early. Pre-promote. It allows time for viral buzz (aka free promotion) to build and ensures you’ll get you a larger share of a discretionary spending.
Continue reading the entire 100 Tips here.Comments
Good read - check it out...
This may be the smallest record player in existence... so portable, you can carry it around in a pocket. The designer, Charlie Pyott warns...
You should be using this if you:
-Enjoy music
-Like to casually collect records
-Travel frequently and have limited spaceDO NOT USE IF YOU:
-Do not like music
-Are an audiophile
WANT WANT WANT
Record Collector to re-issue lost albums with Secret Records
11:16 | Wednesday August 26, 2009
Record Collector magazine has teamed up with Secret Records to re-issue classic “lost” albums from the Sixties.
The partners are to re-issue records originally released by Morgan Blue Town, which Secret product manager Mike Mastrangelo calls “a classic old British psychedelic label whose records command vast sums of money”.
The label was set up by singer / producer / publisher Monty Babson and his partner Barry Morgan. It released singles and albums from acts including The Academy and Cliff Wade, but all sold poorly and have now become collector’s items.
The first release – which is being offered exclusively to Record Collector readers – will be Pussy Plays by Pussy (produced and arranged by Danny Beckerman). It will come out on 180 gram vinyl, with a numbered certificate signed by Rare Record Price Guide editor Ian Shirley.
Future re-issues will include The Smoke’s It’s Smoke Time and possible an unreleased record by Red Dirt.
Comment on this story
Look forward to seeing what this yields...
Last year, whilst researching possible new features to bolt into a Virgin website, I created a test mix on 8tracks.com. Frankly since then I've thought no more of it, until I received this slightly perplexing email in my inbox this morning:
Hello 8tracks DJ,
Many thanks for using 8tracks! We've made great strides this year,
including a nomination for Best Music Site at the Webbys and some 10X
growth in traffic in the spring. We really appreciate your efforts in
helping to make this happen. We are also redoubling our efforts to
ensure we stay on the right side of the law and avoid potential legal
issues with copyright holders. To that end, it's come to our
attention that you've published a mix with more than 3 artists listed
in the mixpage description.
Under the terms of the statutory license under which 8tracks operates,
8tracks is prohibited from presenting more than several "illustrative
artists" in the description of a mix, and our terms of use, available
at http://8tracks.com/terms, clarify this further: "No more than 3
artists represented in the mix may be listed in the associated
description, whether on the 8tracks platform or on third-party
websites" (from section 12.3(b)), and "Song names may not be included
in the mix description, whether on the 8tracks platform or on
third-party websites" (from section 12.3(c)).
We ask that you update the description field for your mixes by
identifying no more than 3 artists in the mix and removing any
reference to individual song titles. Please familiarize yourself
with the 8tracks terms of use. We appreciate your use of 8tracks and
hope this clarification will assist you in ensuring compliance.
Please understand, however, that future violations will require us to
initiate the "three strikes" repeat infringer policy required by the
Copyright Act.
Thanks for your cooperation. We want to keep 8tracks legal, and we
hope you continue to enjoy the service.
Best,
David
So, just to ensure I have this straight, are 8tracks saying I can make a mix compilation comprising a bunch of artists, but cannot then attribute credit to them all in my description? What on earth is that about??
Note also the rather heavy-handed use of terms like "violations" and "three strikes". Now might be a good time to remind 8tracks that, unlike ISPs where someone is paying a set fee for web access, this is simply a free service. In fact, not only is it free, it is one of many in a fairly crowded market space and therefore a site I am likely to simply pass on using if it continues to describe my usage in such terms...
Bad wording aside, this is started to whiff slightly of the RIAA and arcane rulemaking. A pity, as I still think 8tracks is a good site with a nice user interface. Perhaps they could shed some light on why this emails are now being sent out - in my case a good 9 months or so since I created the mix?
@liquidindian asked me what Android apps I recommend, so rather than try to shoehorn a response into 140chars I thought I'd use this place to expand on it a little more...
System Apps: Android is a great OS, but it does have one or two Achilles Heel aspects to it. First and foremost is the issue of how it handles applications and memory. In short, you cannot close an app directly; instead Android saves it in a suspended state and, when memory is being used up, closes the apps as required. In use, this does mean switching apps can be incredibly fast. Where it falls down is with the issue that some badly-coded apps can continue using CPU (and therefore battery) power whilst suspended, draining your device to zero in no time at all. First essential app for me then is CloseEverything (v2 in my case, for Cupcake). This is basically a task manager, allowing you to shut down background apps, or even close them all in one click. Personally I've found this to be invaluable and it has drastically improved battery life by ensuring that what doesn't need to be running is closed. The Cupcake version of CloseEverything is a paid app, but its 85p well spent, trust me! AutoLock is the second must-have app for me, as it overrides the screen locking that can occur when the screen times out. On Android, the minute the screen goes black (usually after 10secs) it also locks, which can get pretty irritating when you have to keep unlocking it. AutoLock addresses this by allowing you to have the screen switch off as usual (to conserve power), but doesn't lock it so that when you hit the Menu key, it simply comes back to life. Arguably this (and CloseEverything) should be system apps, but until then its worth grabbing them to improve your user experience.