The government’s plan to clamp down on filesharing is a mistake – we need to find a better alternative that won’t stifle creativity

By Tom Watson MP / @tom_watson

Yesterday’s announcement that the Government is considering significantly increasing the penalties for people who are accused, by rightsholders, of illicit filesharing is a mistake that could have far reaching political consequences.

Nowadays, there’s nothing strange in businesses coming to the Government to ask for help in seeing them through economic difficulty. At times like these, it falls on legislators to take proposals for intervention on their merits. But there’s one type of industry that has been established in the lobby chamber since long before the credit crunch: publishers and distributors of information goods. Challenged by the revolutionary distribution mechanism that is the internet, big publishers with their expensive marketing and PR operations and big physical distribution networks, are seeing their power and profits diminish. Faced with the choice of accepting this and innovating, or attempting, King Cnut-style, to stay the tide of change, they’re choosing the latter option, and looking to Parliament for help with some legislative sand bags. Many in the industry want the power to press a button to cut off people from the internet suspected of illegal downloading.

Yesterday’s announcement by Stephen Timms means that their desires are close to getting realised. The number of citizens such measures would affect is significant, both in terms of the number of people apparently engaged in illicit filesharing (estimated at between 6 and 8 million) and the much larger number of people who might share a home internet connection with these copyright infringers, and have their perfectly legal – and often economically productive and socially beneficial – online activities disrupted as a result of enforced ISP sanctions. Many will think the plans ill conceived, unworkable and unjust. What about parents who don’t know what their teenage kids are up to? Or the people who have their wifi connection hacked? Or students sharing a broadband connection in rented accommodation?

And it remains unclear whether re-establishing the market power of the old analogue distribution industries is the best thing policy-makers can do to support the thousands of artists, writers and film makers who want to make a living from their craft in the digital age.

Many artists feel that publishers have stymied legal alternatives that may reward reward them. Only this month, Morrissey took the unusual step of urging his fans not to buy a boxed set of his own re-released songs because EMI were not paying him royalties. Music legend Billy Bragg formed the Featured Artists Coalition to campaign for a greater control of content and royalties for artists and musicians. Billy recently said:

“[The] record industry in Britain is still going down the road of criminalising our audience for downloading illegal MP3s. If we follow the music industry down that road, we will be doing nothing more than being part of a protectionist effort. It’s like trying to put toothpaste back in the tube.”

A clever government would pay attention to the significant political difficulties these legislative proposals may yet face. Since 2007, France has been trying to enact similar laws, against the twin tides of constitutional and swelling popular resistance – in part led by our sister party in the French parliament. Meanwhile, the combination of new internet snooping laws and a high profile court case against torrent-swapping site the Pirate Bay moved the Swedish electorate to send a member of the controversial Pirate Party to Brussels in the European elections in June. Across Europe and the world, ordinary people are beginning to realise their stake in the copyright settlement, and to demand that legislators act beyond the interests of the incumbent analogue publishing, to secure the future of digital cultural production in a much broader, long-term context. It is worth noting that the Pirate Party UK registered with the electoral commission this month and announced their intention to stand at the next election.

So what can Government do? A much more fruitful path – economically, politically and socially – would be to ask why current economic and regulatory conditions are not bringing about enough legal alternatives to draw UK consumers away from illicit p2p. Working on the fairly safe assumptions that (a) people like downloading music from the internet, and (b) most people, given a choice, would prefer not to break the law, we should aim to map a way forward for businesses old and new to take advantage of the digital market in a way that allows them sufficient profits to invest in the creative talent of the future.

It is clear that the big corporations are gearing up for an online struggle. Enforcement is central to their strategy. Expect to see hordes of bedsit bloggers and home alone music fans in the courts for copyright misdemeanours over the next few years.

And at a time when attempts to bring all-you-can-eat digital services to music fans might just be about to pay off, it is curious that the Government is now talking about cutting people off. Feargal Sharkey – the de facto leader of the UK Music industry, has recently cajoled many of the big music corporations to come out against suspending people’s internet connections for their misdemeanours, preferring a more reasonable approach.

Instead of consulting on the best way to criminalise 6 million UK citizens, wouldn’t it be better if civil servants in the Department for Business spent its time asking questions about what regulation can help stimulate legal alternatives to illicit filesharing on across the internet? Then we might have more chance of coming up with interventions that will nurture 21st century creative talent in the UK, and not just restore 20th century incumbents to their position of power.