The Digital Economy Bill: A wise move?

By Lisa Ansell / @LisaAnsell

The Digital Economy Bill was supposed to provide the ‘backbone’ for a future in which the internet will become even more central to all aspects of our life and our industry. Yet the rapid progression of this bill has prompted accusations of “sidestepping democracy“, suppression of free speech, and legislating against the British public to suit the interests of a few large companies. A matter of weeks away from one of the closest-fought general elections I can remember, my question is: what effect will this bill have?

The internet is a tool for communication; it has changed the way we communicate beyond imagination. Using digital formats, we can share data quickly, easily, and with a more people than ever before. It is simultaneously a marketers dream, and nightmare – you can reach a massive audience, cheaply and quickly, but it is much more difficult to exercise control over what that market sees, hears, or says.

If we take the music industry as a case in point the means to make, market, and distribute the commodity are now in everyone’s hands. Releasing a record no longer means finding the holy grail of a label who will sign you up; gaining access to radio playlists is no longer the only way get your music heard.

There has been a proliferation of new record labels, making a living in a market which they were previously excluded from. New tools like Soundcloud, MySpace, Twitter, and the plethora of digital download sites offer opportunities for collaboration, distribution and marketing that were previously held by just a few companies.

There has been a dramatic increase in gig and festival ticket sales, and the music industry has a vibrancy and diversity that has been lacking for a long time. Some companies have grasped the opportunity that this massive new market has provided, and some have not. Discussions around these changes, and objections to this bill, always focus on one issue: filesharing.

In one corner, we have the major record labels saying filesharing is theft that has “cost” billions; in the other we have the rest of the market showing that they don’t agree. That cost includes the death of a retail market, which would seem an inevitable part of all downloading, not just illegal downloading. Music is downloaded (legally and illegally) on a scale that record sales never matched and there is evidence to show that consumers who download and share the most music are also the people who are buying it. Some companies want to grasp the opportunities the internet gives, but not adjust to its challenges.

Commercially speaking, criminalising millions of your customers is not likely to have long term benefits. It is also clear that the difficulties major labels are facing are not just a result of illegal downloading.

Practically, this clause is unlikely to have the desired effect. Shields for IP addresses which help downloaders evade detection are being released daily. Every attempt to tackle the ‘problem’ of illegal downloads, has gone the same way. A change in technology, a change in website – the market decides, and downloading continues.

There is no doubt a debate needs to be had about how notions of copyright should change to reflect this new market, but no matter how much the major labels lobby, there isn’t consensus even within the music industry.

This bill is unlikely to help the industry reach that consensus, especially not if the way it is pushed through is seen to restrict necessary debate. The bill which is supposed to provide the structure for Britain’s digital future, is currently being opposed by the internet service provders who are central to that future – not because they are worried about their profits, but because they don’t want to police their customers in this way, especially not on the basis of an assumption that has not been proved. Consumers are worried that this clause could have serious effects on their lives. Consumers vote.

Is this clause so important that it is necessary to push it through at any cost? Is it really wise to have this bill become an easily recalled symbol of Labour’s record on civil liberties, and a ‘sidestepping’ of democratic process? This close to this election?