• Full Story

File sharing 'scourge' of music industry - ex-RIANZ boss

Print

Fri, 04 Feb 2011 1:45p.m.

Campbell Smith says file sharing is the "scourge" of the music industry

Campbell Smith says file sharing is the "scourge" of the music industry

By Jerram Watts

Campbell Smith spent six years heading the Recording Industry Association of New Zealand (RIANZ) during a time of considerable technological change.

He has resigned – effective mid-March – but remains a fierce opponent of illegal internet file sharing which he calls the “scourge of the industry”.

His comments come at a time when amendments to the Copyright Act are due to become law on July 1 this year, meaning persons found guilty of illegal file sharing will be punished through fines or having their internet usage suspended.

“You have to say to the public: ‘This is the law you are breaking and these are the consequences’,” Mr Smith says. “You give them notices telling them what they are doing is wrong and there are sanctions to penalise them.”

The new laws repeal Section 92A of the Copyright Act and put in place a three-notice regime intended to deter illegal file sharing.

Copyright owners who can provide evidence of infringements can request Internet Service Providers (ISPs) give alleged infringers notice to stop their activity.

If it continues, a second and third notice will be issued.

As a final resort, copyright owners may seek a compensation award at the Copyright Tribunal. The amount of the award may be up to $15,000 depending on the amount of damage caused.

Copyright owners can also request suspension of internet accounts, but this must be done through the courts and can only last up to six months.

Account holders can request a hearing if they feel they should not be penalised.

Mr Smith says this is a “fair and reasonable approach” that he is confident will hamstring illegal file sharers.

“We are happy to have something in place that provides some sort of sanction process; that’s the path the Government wants to follow and we are supportive of that.”

It sounds hardline, and Mr Smith is, but he says he understands the public need to be better educated about copyright law.

“Copyright is a difficult thing for the public to get their heads around; they may not know what they are doing is wrong and this is why the creativity of our artists needs to be protected.”

Director of the Creative Freedom Foundation Bronwyn Holloway-Smith says the issue of file sharing is complex.

“The internet has given the music industry a huge amount of potential to distribute and connect with fans, but what we are seeing is a situation where record companies have business models from years ago which are failing to adapt to the environment.”

Mr Smith agrees that business models need to be revised.

“We need to be able to say to consumers, ‘here is a viable alternative option to what you are doing’, whether it be via a la carte downloading or subscription services,” he says.

Alternative options like Spotify; a UK-based website that charges users a subscription fee which grants them access to millions of downloads.

Or sites like LastFM which use an on demand-styled model, enabling users to listen to music online and a keep a record of previous visits.

Ms Holloway-Smith says she supports most of the law changes, but disagrees with internet termination.

“The replacement law is a huge improvement but at the same time the penalty of internet termination is short-sighted and unfair,” she says. “The law being put forward doesn’t include any penalty for false accusations and we are concerned that could lead to people abusing the law.”

Ms Holloway-Smith, herself a musician, says many artists are now selling directly to their audience as a result of file-sharing.

“File sharing can have some consequences when it promotes music to new fans; when they share music they are telling people about what they like, which is a promotion activity and can lead to increased concert ticket sales.

“While we don’t condone illegal file sharing there can be some positive outcomes.”

It’s a sentiment shared by the frontman of Kiwi band Avalanche City, Dave Baxter, who made his debut album Our New Life Above The Ground available for free download on his website.

“The reason it was free was because I had worked so hard on it and wanted people to enjoy my music, but also because Avalanche City is relatively unknown and you can’t expect people to buy an unknown band,” he says.

“Having your music for free on the internet definitely helps out unknown artists; most people have been given [downloaded music] from friends and you end up going to their shows and buying t-shirts and stuff.”

Baxter says most artists don’t care that their music is available for file sharing, as they make most of their money from touring, but says people should still aim to buy CDs.

The Copyright Act amendments come into effect on July 1; Mr Smith says he is confident the laws will succeed, but only time will tell.

“I guess we’ll see what happens with what we’ve got now; if it works – great, if not, we’ll have to find another solution.”

Ms Holloway-Smith says the record companies should get on the bandwagon while they still can.

“The internet is essentially a big copying machine; you can’t stop copying from happening. So if the music industry wasn’t to keep up they will have to adapt and find ways of taking advantage of it.”

3 News

Become a fan of 3 News on Facebook and on Twitter.

Post a Comment

Before commenting, please take the time to read our moderation guide


(Won't be published)



Comments

08 Feb 2011 01:20p.m.

beeg wrote:

Very concerning that there is no provisions for penalties for false accusations. Given that the companies that have engaged in these sorts of activities have done things such as taking legal action against the homeless and the dead, these new laws should be of concern to everyone. The encroach of the corporatocracy is upon us....

07 Feb 2011 01:08p.m.

Hampus wrote:

Spotify is notionally a Swedish company. The service originates from and is developed in Sweden, by Spotify AB. A parent company has been set up and registered in Luxembourg. It’s only a small part, which includes the customer-facing portion, that has been incorporated in the UK. Music is accessed through purpose-built client applications, not through a website. The access model is somewhere between downloading and streaming, depending on your account type. Even with Spotify Premium, content remains in an encrypted cache accessible only to the Spotify client, and can be played offline on only a limited number of computers. This isn’t the yours-to-keep sort of download. I believe that ‘offline’ isn’t completely offline, in that the client must periodically upload information about which tracks have been played, because Spotify is billed by the rights holders by the play. There has been controversy, because music that users thought they had access to can suddenly disappear, when there is a dispute between Spotify and a rights holder. Apart from that, everything else you wrote about Spotify is true. :-) I’m still at a loss as to why Internet account holders, in a private, non-commercial capacity, should be liable for all copyright infringement. Failure to implement technical measures that completely illuminates copyright infringement by third parties using your Internet connection is not the same as authorising that infringement.

05 Feb 2011 08:35a.m.

Kat wrote:

All I ever read is justification and excuses for stealing music off the internet by freeloaders which makes it more expensive for honest joes who actually support artists who create music for our enjoyment by buying their songs. If no money flows back into the industry all we are going to get is crap music in the future. Thanks very much freeloaders - NOT!

05 Feb 2011 01:06a.m.

H. Kobland wrote:

The three strikes law is never going to curb file sharing. File sharing will just go underground.


We will always win.

04 Feb 2011 06:51p.m.

john wrote:

Modern music isn't worth buying. Most people don't like going through the hassle anyway. Just download and go. None of that purchase rubbish, music is for enjoyment anyway and there are more important areas of society that people should be throwing money at.

04 Feb 2011 06:06p.m.

Henry wrote:

Boo hoo, society is advancing and now culture is freely spreading and evolving. Now I can't afford my second sports car for 2011!

04 Feb 2011 05:52p.m.

jojo wrote:

creepy

04 Feb 2011 05:20p.m.

Craig wrote:

Music has been around for thousands of years, the music "industry" has been around for less than 100. Think about that. Plenty of musicians work proper jobs in order to finance their hobby. Most of my APRA payments are for live performances.

04 Feb 2011 04:42p.m.

Mark wrote:

Mr Smith (just been reminded of The Matrix, there), if CD's were actually a reasonable price, instead of so massively marked up, the average user would not be as interested in trying to obtain same for less or nothing. CD's are stupidly overpriced. Always have been. @kane, the ISP doesn't actually have to "snoop", as you put it. Users sharing significant numbers of files via a p2p program are publicly indicating to any other connected computer user their IP number, and a full list of what is being shared.

04 Feb 2011 02:12p.m.

kane wrote:

Sanction and take away rights of law abiding citizens... Yes copyrights are important but snooping from Isps providers is more important... Most people who use the internet do not download copyright content... I take it Mr Campbell Smith is of the theory New Zealand artiest are not doing well due to be ripped off by share file users... Other hand maybe New Zealand music isn't as popular as some think it is... I put to TV3 try and find new New Zealand music files on share sites you might find the odd single or two... But as far as full good quality albums go I would be surprised if you found any done in the last 10yrs....